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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: “method” should be “device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
All claims recite subject matter falling within the four categories of invention (Step 1).
Exemplary claims 1-14 recite:
1. (Original) A computer-implemented method for assessing performance of a site comprising a solar field system which includes solar panels and is configured for providing heat, the method comprising: providing a heating requirement for the solar field system; providing one or more sets of inputs, each set of inputs including:meteorological data, panel features for one or more solar panel types, and site data; and computing automatically, for each set of inputs, by a computer system and based on the set of inputs, output data including a respective quantification of a carbon footprint of the site, and/or a number and/or type of panels to meet the heating requirement.
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the site further comprises a thermal storage and a gas heater, the computation of the output data comprising: calculating the number of panels of the solar field system; calculating a solar field power production over a period; and simulating an energy management of the solar field system, the thermal storage and the gas heater.
3. (Original) The method of claim 2, wherein the panel features include a solar Keymark equation, the calculation of the number of panels comprising: calculating irradiance data for a day of the year based on the meteorological data; calculating a power production of one panel based on the calculated irradiance data and the solar Keymark equation; and calculating the number of panels based on the power production of one panel and the heating requirement.
4. (Original) The method of claim 3, wherein the calculation of the solar field power production over the period comprises: discretizing the period into a set of time intervals; and for each time interval, calculating a power production and an outlet temperature provided by the solar field system based on the solar Keymark equation, the calculated number of panels and a solar field flow rate.
5. (Original) The method of claim 4, wherein the solar field power production is configured to provide a constant outlet temperature, the calculation of the solar field power production further comprises, for each time interval of the set: correcting the flow rate such that the calculated outlet temperature provided by the solar field system corresponds to the constant outlet temperature.
6. (Currently amended) The method of claim 4, wherein the simulation of the energy management comprises determining a thermal power of the gas heater based on the solar field flow rate and the calculated outlet temperature.
7. (Original) The method of claim 6, wherein the simulation of the energy management comprises determining a power loading of the thermal storage based on the heating requirement, the calculated solar field power production, the determined thermal power of the gas heater and a remaining thermal storage.
8. (Currently amended) The method of claim 2, wherein the computation of the output data further comprises setting a panel tilt angle, the setting of the panel tilt angle comprising: determining a set of panel tilt angles; computing an annual efficiency for each panel tilt angle of the set; and selecting the panel tilt angle of the set that maximizes the computed annual efficiency.
9. (Currently amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the site further comprises a circulation pump, the computation of the output data further comprises: calculating a pressure drop in the solar field system, the pressure drop comprising a main distributor pressure drop, a module pressure drop and a main collector pressure drop; calculating a power consumption of the circulation pump based on the calculated pressure drop.
10. (Currently amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the provision of the one or more sets of inputs comprises: selecting a solar panel technology from a set of solar panel technologies, the set of solar panel technologies including at least one fixed panel technology and/or at least one panel technology based on a tracking system; selecting one or more manufacturers of the selected solar panel technology; and automatically importing from a database the panel features according to the selected one or more manufacturers.
11. (Currently amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the output data further include, for each set of inputs, a panel layout among a predetermined set of panel layouts.
12. (Original) The method of claim 11, wherein the predetermined set of panel layouts includes a linear panel layout and an assembly panel layout.
13. (Currently amended) The method of claim 1,wherein the one or more sets of inputs comprises several sets of inputs, thereby computing respective quantifications of the carbon footprint of the site, and/or numbers and/or types of panels to meet the heating requirement each for a respective set of inputs, the method further comprising upgrading a real-world site, the upgrading comprising: determining, based on each computed respective quantification and/or on each number and/or type of panels, one or more solar panels to be integrated on a solar field system of the site and/or an improvement of one or more existing solar panels of the solar field system.
14. (Currently amended) The method of claim 1,wherein the method further comprises designing a site comprising a solar field system, the designingcomprising: determining a solar panel technology, a number and/or a type of solar panels for the solar field system based on each computed respective quantification of the carbon footprint and/or on each number and/or type of panels and on a net technical cost.
But for the recitation of the underlined components (computer, computer system), claims 1-14 recite a concept for designing a solar field based on a series of judgements and calculations. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations” and “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” With respect to claims 1-14 the claimed process steps comprise mathematical calculations or steps that could be done mentally. Furthermore, although some claims recite “simulating” steps, the specification is clear that these are calculations or determinations (see PGPUB [18], [19], [93], [118]-[121]).
Thus claims 1-14 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A_1).
The additional elements (computer, computer system) are recited at a high degree of generality such that they amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, which per MPEP 2106.05(f) means they do not provide a practical application or significantly more (Step 2A_2, Step 2B). Thus claims 1-14 are ineligible. Claims 18-23 mirror claims 1-14 and are considered ineligible for the same reasons.
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, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being “Modeling and simulation of solar water heater: A TRNSYS perspective” by Shrivastava.
Regarding claim 1, Shrivastava discloses:
1. (Original) A computer-implemented method for assessing performance of a site comprising a solar field system which includes solar panels and is configured for providing heat (fig. 6.3), the method comprising: providing a heating requirement for the solar field system (fig. 6.3 load profile); providing one or more sets of inputs (fig. 6.3 weather, architecture configuration), each set of inputs including:meteorological data (fig. 6.3 weather), panel features for one or more solar panel types (fig. 6.3 collectors), and site data (fig. 6.3 installation details; and computing automatically, for each set of inputs, by a computer system and based on the set of inputs, output data including a respective quantification of a carbon footprint of the site, and/or a number and/or type of panels to meet the heating requirement (page 137 6.5.3 auxuiliary heating rate corresponds to carbon footprintPage 140 Table A1 Type 29 Economic Analysis fuel usage cost corresponds to carbon footprint).
Regarding claim 13, Shrivastava discloses:
13. (Currently amended) The method of claim 1,wherein the one or more sets of inputs comprises several sets of inputs (fig. 6.3), thereby computing respective quantifications of the carbon footprint of the site (page 137 6.5.3 auxuiliary heating rate corresponds to carbon footprintPage 140 Table A1 Type 29 Economic Analysis fuel usage cost corresponds to carbon footprint), and/or numbers and/or types of panels to meet the heating requirement each for a respective set of inputs, the method further comprising upgrading a real-world site, the upgrading comprising: determining, based on each computed respective quantification and/or on each number and/or type of panels, one or more solar panels to be integrated on a solar field system of the site and/or an improvement of one or more existing solar panels of the solar field system (abstract describes optimization through iteration implying that system of figure 6.3 can be adjusted to improve results).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 and see entire document regarding TRNSYS software being computer implemented.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as claim 13.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected for the same reason as claims 18 and 19.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 11, 12, 14, 20, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Modeling and simulation of solar water heater: A TRNSYS perspective” by Shrivastava in view of Chaudhari (US 11615487 B2)
Regarding claim 2, Shrivastava further discloses:
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the site further comprises a thermal storage (page 134 6.3 “storage tank”) and a gas heater (page 137 6.5.3 gas tankless auxiliary heating rate), the computation of the output data comprising:
Shrivastava fails to disclose and Chaudhari discloses calculating a number of panels (fig. 6 s610). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Shrivastava by calculating a number of panels based on site details and customer need. The motivation for the combination is improved accuracy in solar modeling (column 5 line 21).
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Shrivastava fails to disclose and Chaudhari discloses
Wherein the output data includes a panel layout including a linear panel layout and an assembly panel layout (fig. 6 s610). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Shrivastava by calculating a number of panels based on site details and customer need. The motivation for the combination is improved accuracy in solar modeling (column 5 line 21).
Regarding claim 14, Shrivastava fails to disclose and Chaudhari discloses: determining a solar panel technology, a number and/or a type of solar panels for the solar field system based on each computed respective quantification of the carbon footprint and/or on each number and/or type of panels and on a net technical cost (fig. 6 s610 s625). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Shrivastava by calculating a number of panels based on site details and customer need. The motivation for the combination is improved accuracy in solar modeling (column 5 line 21).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as claim 14.
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reason as claim 20.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Modeling and simulation of solar water heater: A TRNSYS perspective” by Shrivastava in view of Wayne (US 20100217565 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shrivastava discloses:
wherein the provision of the one or more sets of inputs comprises: selecting a solar panel technology from a set of solar panel technologies (page 134 section 6.3), the set of solar panel technologies optionally including at least one fixed panel technology and/or at least one panel technology based on a tracking system (page 134 section 6.3); automatically importing from a database the panel features (page 135 6.3 collectors module)
Srivastava fails to disclose and Wayne discloses simulations based on manufacturer specific components (paragraph 82). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simulate based on component specific data. The motivation for the combination is more efficient evaluation of components (paragraph 4).
Claim status
Claims 3-9 are considered to distinguish over the cited art. Regarding claims 3-7, the art of record fails to disclose in combination with claim 2, wherein the panel features include a solar Keymark equation, the calculation of the number of panels comprising: calculating irradiance data for a day of the year based on the meteorological data; calculating a power production of one panel based on the calculated irradiance data and the solar Keymark equation; and calculating the number of panels based on the power production of one panel and the heating requirement.
Regarding claim 8, the art of record fails to disclose: wherein the computation of the output data further comprises setting a panel tilt angle, the setting of the panel tilt angle comprising: determining a set of panel tilt angles; computing an annual efficiency for each panel tilt angle of the set; and selecting the panel tilt angle of the set that maximizes the computed annual efficiency. Regarding claim 9, the art of record fails to disclose: wherein the site further comprises a circulation pump, the computation of the output data further comprises: calculating a pressure drop in the solar field system, the pressure drop comprising a main distributor pressure drop, a module pressure drop and a main collector pressure drop; calculating a power consumption of the circulation pump based on the calculated pressure drop.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hochart (US 20090177458 A1) discloses a tool for evaluating solar configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights