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 .
Status of claims: claims 1-9 and 11-13 are pending below. Claims 9-10 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks – (pages 6-7) Applicant argued the new claim amendment where the cited prior art does not teach the new claim amendment and further argued that Ananthakrishnan et al carried out solely in 3D, when the 2D image is required due to new claim amendment. Please see Remarks for further detail. This same argument applies to claims 2-8 and 11-13.
Examiner response – Examiner respectfully disagree. Ananthakrishnan et al detail in paragraph 0039 where the imagery is 2D as well and such information is retrieved from one or more databases, thus the argument that the imagery is from Ananthakrishnan et al is solo 3D is moot. Please see the Office Action below for further detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Claims and Remarks, filed August 10th, 2026, with respect to non-statutory subject matter in claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to claim amendment. The 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ananthakrishnan et al (US 2017/0091578) in view of AUDDYA et al (US 2022/0181885).
Claim 1:
Ananthakrishnan et al (US 2017/0091578) teaches the following subject matter:
A method for determining an arrangement of photovoltaic panels on zones of a territory, called target zones the method being implemented by computer and comprising the following steps:
a. receiving of a bird's eye view image of a territory comprising at least one target zone (figures 9-15, specifically figure 15 with determine solar panel configuration; 0022 detail aerial and satellite images (bird eye view) of specified points representing an upper-most surface of ground, vegetation, structure (rooftop), and/or items at a location), the image being a two-dimensional image (0039 detail two dimensional imagery from point cloud data are determined as well location information retrieved from one or more database),
b. detecting of each target zone on the image by segmenting the image so as to obtain a of the target zones of the image, called zone (0026-0031 detail target zone such as rooftops, other man-made structures using feature extraction for highly accurate extractions to identifies feature while avoiding obstructions and shading, as well as man-made structure, nearby vegetation and elevated terrain)
c. applying the zone on the image so as to obtain an image, called target image, on which only the target zones of the image are represented (figure 2 step 210 and 0064-0068 detail viable areas are determined. For example, the solar radiation incident on each area (e.g., each square foot)),
d. detecting contours on the target image so as to obtain a contour, the detected contour represent obstacles on the target zone(s) (figure 2 and 0064-0068 detail outline (contour) unobstructed roof plane for solar incidence of the viable areas is determined)
e. detecting obstacles on each target zone of the image by combining the zone and the contour so as to obtain a of the obstacles present on the target zone(s) of the image, called obstacle (0064-0068 detail solar radiation incident on each area (e.g., each square foot) is determined over the course of a day and a year taking into account occluded sunlight due to structures, vegetation, or distant elevated terrain (obstacles) as well as chimneys, vents, skylights, air conditioners, in the case of a rooftop site), and
f. determining an arrangement of photovoltaic panels on each target zone of the image based on the obstacle so as to satisfy at least one positioning requirement, the at least one positioning requirement stipulating that each photovoltaic panel covers a segment of a target zone free of obstacles (0064-0068 detail step 212, solar incidence of the viable areas are determined. For example, the solar radiation incident on each area (e.g., each square foot) is determined over the course of a day and a year resulting in a layout is determined for a solar power configuration based on the incident solar radiation available and the constraints (obstacles listed above)).
Ananthakrishnan et al teaches all the subject matter above, but not the following: mask.
AUDDYA et al (US 2022/0181885) teaches mask (figure 6 and 0050-0053 detail roof mask for identifying roof, roof edge, identify abruption, portion of roof where solar panel can potentially be positioned with contour analysis with coordinate and boundaries; 0073 and figure 19 step 1908 detail roof mask to determine size and shape; claim 4 detail roof mask for roof segments to identify obstruction and limitations).
Ananthakrishnan et al and AUDDYA et al are both in the field of image analysis, especially using images from aerial/satellite/UVA drones for rooftop analysis for viable of solar plane placement and configuration such that the combined outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Ananthakrishnan et al by AUDDYA et al such analysis provides optimized for practical and aesthetically correct virtual panel placements as disclosed AUDDYA et al in 0053.
Claim 2:
Ananthakrishnan et al teach:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises, at the end of the determination step, obtaining a resulting image (IR) corresponding to the image(IM) of the territory with the image (IM) of the determined array (A) of photovoltaic panels superimposed on the target zone(s) (ZE) (figure 15 and 0119 detail superimposed of panel on roof that would provide high and low irradiance output/levels).
Claim 3:
Ananthakrishnan et al teach:
The method according to claim 1E) of the obstacle mask(figure 15 and 0019 detail superimposing, where figure 7 and 0100 detail taking account for size and location where part (partially) of mounting panels with location on site and defined coordinates for viable area).
Claim 4:
Ananthakrishnan et al teach:
The method according to claim 3, wherein positioning of shapes is carried out on segments of images extracted from the obstacle mas(figure 3 and 0070 detail array shape and geometric shape (extracted segments) for lining up the panels along roof edge (target zones), irradiance level constraints…constraining the layout; figure 15A-B displays the position shape and segments throughout the rooftop (target zone)). AUDDYA et al addressee segmentation of the roof in figure 6-10 for position solar panels.
Claim 5:
AUDDYA et al teach:
The method according to claim 1,wherein the step of detection of contours is performed by applying a Canny filter to the target image(0051 detail using contours are found using a Canny algorithm and/or a HED (Holistically-Nested Edge Detection) algorithm to detect edges of each planar surface and, at 612, determine pixel coordinates of contour boundaries.)
Claim 6:
Ananthakrishnan et al teach:
The method according to claim 1,wherein the method comprises a step of determination of characteristics relating to the solar production of the determined array(figure 15 and 0119 detail superimposed of panel on roof that would provide high and low irradiance output/levels, where the characteristic such as high or low irradiance for high or low energy production output).
Claim 7:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the arrangement of photovoltaic panels is determined so as to satisfy at least one other positioning requirement selected from the group consisting of:
a. requiring each photovoltaic panel is positioned on a segment of a target zone corresponding to an irradiance greater than a predetermined irradiance over a given period of time (Ananthakrishnan et al teach figure 15A-B and 0119 teaches segment with each solar panel position/layout base on high, medium and low level of irradiance, where 0038 detail layout consideration base on solar irradiance levels over a course of a year. AUDDYA et al teach – figure 9 and 0057 determining pre-placed solar panels),
b. a stipulating that each photovoltaic panel is positioned on a segment of a target zone shaded by possible obstacles over at most a predetermined percentage of the surface thereof over a given period of time, and
c. requiring that each photovoltaic panel is positioned on a target zone such that same is at a distance greater than a predetermined minimum distance from possible obstacles and/or contours of the target.
Claim 8:
Ananthakrishnan et al teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the target zone(s)) of the image are surfaces of human constructions feature extraction for highly accurate extractions to identifies feature while avoiding obstructions and shading, as well as man-made structure,.
Claim 11:
AUDDYA et al teach:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the extracted segments of images have undergone a rotation before the positioning of shapes (figure 10 and 0060 detail determine panel orientation with position horizontal or vertical (90-degree rotation) based on azimuth angle and the perpendicular point in direction).
Claim 12:
Ananthakrishnan et al teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the image is an aerial or a satellite image (0022 detail aerial and satellite images).
Claim 13:
Ananthakrishnan et al teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable information medium on which a computer program product configured to cause a computer to execute the method according to claim 1 is stored (0019 and claim 16 detail non-transitory computer readable storage medium).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SADKA et al (US 2015/0161442) teaches SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF POTENTIAL SOLAR INSTALLABLE SURFACE AREA - determining a potential surface for installation of solar panels are provided. The method includes extracting, from a database of overhead images, at least one overhead image respective of a location; identifying a surface outline of at least one surface within the at least one overhead image; determining a pattern associated with the surface outline, the pattern comprising at least a facet; determining a potential installation area for solar panels based on the at least facet; and, displaying the potential installation area overlaid on the overhead image (abstract).
Stevens et al (US 2021/0272358) teaches AUTOMATED THREE-DIMENSIONAL BUILDING MODEL ESTIMATION - an aerial image of a building based on an input address; obtaining, using the one or more processors, three-dimensional (3D) data containing the building based on the input address; pre-processing the aerial image and 3D data; reconstructing, using the one or more processors, a 3D building model from the pre-processed image and 3D data, the reconstructing including: predicting, using instance segmentation, a mask for each roof face; converting each roof face into a two-dimensional (2D) polygon; and projecting each 2D polygon into a 3D polygon representing the 3D building model (abstract).
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 TSUNG-YIN TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1671. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-7453. 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.
/TSUNG YIN TSAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights