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 .
Claims 1-14 and 16 have been presented for examination.
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.
Claim 13 remains 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 13 recites the limitation “the conversion of the DC current” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, “the” has been interpreted as “a”.
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, 6, 8-9, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerrigan1 in view of Ziar2.
A method for evaluating the operation of a photovoltaic installation in an environment, the photovoltaic installation comprising several photovoltaic modules [Fig. 1, 0022], the method being implemented by a computer and comprising the following steps:
collecting input data relative to the environment and to the photovoltaic installation [0043-0044, 0047].
determining irradiance parameters to be used by an irradiance calculating model on the basis of the input data, at least one irradiance parameter being albedo, a surface reflecting the sunlight on the photovoltaic modules [0044, 0210].
determining the effective irradiance received by the photovoltaic installation on the basis of the irradiance calculating model, of the input data and of the determined irradiance parameter(s) [0044-0045].
determining the effective energy produced by the photovoltaic installation as a function of the determined effective irradiance and of the input data [0043-0046].
In summary, Kerrigan teaches a solar system where environmental and location information can be used to determine power output of a plurality of solar panels. The information includes modeling irradiance while also factoring in albedo, weather, orientation and other factors.
While Kerrigan teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not further taught to account for special variation of albedo. Ziar teaches that albedo changes spatially and needs to be accounted for when modeling for power generation with photovoltaics [sections 1 and 5.4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Ziar into Kerrigan because Ziar teaches that neglecting to account for changes in albedo can yield over-estimations in the power output of the solar system [Fig. 11, section 5.4].
Referring to claim 6, Kerrigan teaches accounting for changes over time of albedo based on irradiance changes due to factors like snowmelt which is directly corelated [0210].
Referring to claim 8, Ziar teaches the use of bifacial modules [section 5.4].
Referring to claim 9, Kerrigan teaches satellite images can be used determine albedo [0044] and Ziar teaches both onsite measurements which are also used to validate the model [section 4].
Referring to claim 14, Kerrigan teaches that input data includes weather data and orientation data [0043, 0046].
Referring to claim 16, this is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Kerrigan and Ziar teach the method and therefore teaches the program performing the method.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerrigan and Ziar as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-9, 14 and 16 above, and further in view of Munoz3.
Referring to claims 2-4, while the Kerrigan-Ziar combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to modify a feature, position of an element and the structure to maximize irradiance and minimize shading. Munoz explicitly teaches adjusting the tilt angle of each solar panel independently (i.e, modification of a position and modification of the structure) in order to minimize shading (i.e., parasitic shading) and maximize output [abstract, 0001]. It would have been obvious to try including the teachings of Munoz into the Kerrigan-Ziar combination because doing so could lead to improve efficiency of the solar panels as taught by Munoz.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerrigan and Ziar as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-9, 14 and 16 above, and further in view of Perry4.
Referring to claim 5, Kerrigan teaches that reflection associated with the environment can change over time. But such environmental change is associated only with weather data relating to snow and ice coverage [0210]. Kerrigan does not teach further placing the solar panel installation in a field of crops and considering at least one crop irradiance parameter such as reflectivity of the crops.
First the examiner is taking official notice that solar installations are known to be placed almost anywhere that received sunlight including rooftops, on hills and mountains, deserts and cities and even farmland where crops exist. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place a solar installation at any of these sites so long as it provides adequate sunlight and buildable terrain to make such a buildout viable because locating a solar installation in all of these areas provides the known benefit of free energy from the sun.
While the modified Kerrigan-Ziar combination teaches placement in farmland where crops would be present, it is not taught to consider at least one crop irradiance parameter such as reflectivity as stated above. Perry teaches that reflectivity is present in crops and that such reflectivity changes over time (i.e., Perry determines seasonal reflectance data). It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further consider crop reflectance because Kerrigan already acknowledges that changing reflectance data influences power generation and accounting for crop reflectance would provide more accurate determinations in expected power generation of the solar panels.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerrigan and Ziar as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-9, 14 and 16 above, and further in view of Azad5.
Referring to claim 7, while the Kerrigan-Ziar combination teaches the invention substantially above, it is not explicitly taught to further consider a soiling level of the solar panel. Azad teaches that a soiling level of a solar panel affects the power generating output and provides a way to account for how dusty or dirty the panels are based on surrounding soil types and weather-related data [abstract, cols. 2-3 lines 62-13]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Azad into the Kerrigan-Ziar combination because doing so would provide a more accurate estimation of the energy produced by the solar panels as taught by Azad.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the REMARKS, applicants argue in substance that 1) Kerrigan does not determine irradiance parameters; and 2) Ziar does not cure the deficiencies of Kerrigan.
In response to applicants first argument, applicant states that “Kerrigan… collects environmental and photovoltaic installation data and directly provides these input data to its irradiance and power estimation process” [pg. 7 final paragraph]. Therefore, it appears that the input data is properly classified as “irradiance parameters” that are used by the irradiance calculating model as required in claim 1. To be clear, irradiance parameters can be interpreted simply as parameters that are used by the irradiance model so long as they are used to calculate irradiance.
Applicant further directs attention that Kerrigan treats albedo as input data rather than an irradiance parameter. According to claim 1, the irradiance parameters are determined “on the basis of the input data”. Nowhere in the claims is it stated that the irradiance parameters and input data must be different. In fact, using albedo as an irradiance parameter would be valid because it is based on the input data (i.e., albedo used by the irradiance calculating model would be based on the albedo from the satellite imagery).
Lastly, Kerrigan teaches that the albedo is contained in the satellite imagery which collects visible and IR spectrum imagery. Satellite images and images in general represent a special array of values. An image is a spatial array of values, so any quantity carried in it (visible reflectance, IR brightness temperature, albedo) varies by pixel location. Paragraph 0044 states that the imagery data includes albedo, so albedo in the imagery data includes albedo, so albedo in the imagery is spatially varying.
In response to applicants second argument, this argument is moot as Zair was not relied upon to teach irradiance parameters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
PGPUB 2019/0095559 to Hoff teaches forecasting energy generation based on solar irradiance and ambient temperature [0004].
PGPUB 2018/0188301 to McBrearty teaches inputting measured power and energy in a time series according to at least one of solar irradiance, photovoltaic system location, weather including temperature, etc… [0042].
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, claim 10 which teaches that the step of determining the effective energy produced by the photovoltaic installation comprises the determination, by a thermal model, of the evolution of the temperature of the photovoltaic modules as a function of the determined effective irradiance, of a given ambient temperature of the environment and of the input data.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 10/5/26
1 Cited in the prior office action
2 Cited in the prior office action
3 Cited in the prior office action
4 Cited in the prior office action
5 Cited in the prior office action
