DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment filed 02/06/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 21, 23-26, 28-35, 37, 38, 40-43, 49, 51-54, and 56 are presented for examination.
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 1-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 21, 23-26, 29-35, 37, 38, 40-43, 49, and 51-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites
determining, using the computerized system, actual photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters using the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system, wherein determining the actual photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters comprises determining an actual total cable length of the plurality of cables from the 3D illustration for the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system
The limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”. The limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computerized system” nothing precludes the claimed limitations from practically being performed in the mind.
As to the limitations “determining, using the computerized system, actual photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters using the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system, wherein determining the actual photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters comprises determining an actual total cable length of the plurality of cables from the 3D illustration for the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are a mental concept. These activities can be characterized as entailing a user observing, evaluating, and judging that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0034]… With 3D modeling, cable lengths can be determined with greater precision…
[0037]… A notable feature of this approach is its ability to accurately calculate cable lengths required on-site and ensure they meet the established standards…
[0125]… (1) Measuring cable length: Users can measure the cable length within the scene using a cable length detector that follows hand movements".
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong Two: As to the additional element computerized system, it is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations "obtaining, from a computerized system, initial photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters, wherein the initial photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters comprise a wiring diagram comprising electrical data". These limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Examiner notes that "obtaining" is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "for generating an illustration of a photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system for photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation… generating, using the computerized system, a three-dimensional (3D) illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system for use in areal-world engineering project based on the initial photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters and information of a site environment of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system, wherein the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system arranges a plurality of cables, wherein each cable of the plurality of cables specifies a degree of bending based on its bend radius", the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "automatically arranging the plurality of cables in the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system according to the information of the site environment and the degree of bending based on each cable's bend radius", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claim recites the additional element computerized system. It is recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical or mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0168]… a computer system 700… may include, for example, a computer server, personal computer, personal electronic device, or the like".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim 1 recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See Section 2106.05(f) [R-10.2019] of the MPEP. See for example in the Specification:
"[0045] FIG. 1A is a block diagram for generating a three-dimensional (3D) illustration of a solar farm for solar farm installation… The structure for performing the functionality illustrated in one or more of the blocks shown in FIG. 1A may be performed by hardware and/or software components of a computerized apparatus or system".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The limitations are so broad that nothing is known about how the claimed "automatically arranging the plurality of cables in the 3D illustration" is performed. The specification merely reads:
"[0050]… based on the wire harness solution specified for the customer's needs, the cables are arranged in 3D".
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 10, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 10, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites
for assisting photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation using an illustration of a photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system…
generating, from a computerized system, a three-dimensional (3D) illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system determined based on photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters, wherein the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system arranges a plurality of brackets, wherein each bracket of the plurality of brackets specifies an orientation, height, and rotation angle
The limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts. The limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
As to the limitations “generating, from a computerized system, a three-dimensional (3D) illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system determined based on photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters, wherein the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system arranges a plurality of brackets, wherein each bracket of the plurality of brackets specifies an orientation, height, and rotation angle”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are a mental concept. A human mind is capable of generating a 3D illustration from a computer, as recited generically in the claims, such as (e.g., mentally arranging brackets specifying an orientation, height, and rotation angle). These activities can be characterized as entailing a user illustrating that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Examiner notes that claim reads “generating, from a computerized system, a three-dimensional (3D) illustration".
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 10, Step 2A, Prong Two: As to the additional element computerized system, it is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations "receiving, from the computerized system, inputs corresponding to photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation operations from the virtual observer, wherein the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation operations comprise installing a photovoltaic module in corresponding positions on the plurality of brackets". These limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. As to the limitations "displaying, using the computerized system, the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system to a virtual observer based on a field of view (FOV) of the virtual observer" and "providing, using the computerized system, feedback responsive to the inputs, wherein the feedback comprises an indication of the inputs being correct", they are considered generic displaying. As to the limitations "displaying, using the computerized system, the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system to a virtual observer based on a field of view (FOV) of the virtual observer", the specification reads (underline emphasis added): "[0169]… computer system 700 also may comprise… output devices 720, which may comprise without limitation a display device". Examiner interprets providing feedback as displaying, since it is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description. Data gathering and displaying have not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. They are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "automatically adjusting an angle and position of the photovoltaic module to an ideal state in the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system according to the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation operations", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 10, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claim recites the additional element computerized system. It is recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim recites data gathering and displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The limitations are so broad that nothing is known about how the claimed "automatically adjusting an angle and position of the photovoltaic module to an ideal state in the 3D illustration" is performed. The specification merely reads:
"[0068]… During installation, the installation operation is judged. If the installation position and angle roughly match, it is considered a successful installation. The photovoltaic module will automatically adjust its position and angle to an ideal state, accompanied by success effects and sound effects".
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 21, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 21, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites
for assisting photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation using an illustration of a photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system…
generating, from a computerized system, a three-dimensional (3D) illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system for use in a real-world engineering project based on photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters and information of a site environment of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system, wherein the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters comprise a wiring diagram comprising electrical data, wherein the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system arranges a plurality of cables, wherein each cable of the plurality of cables specifies a degree of bending based on its bend radius…
updating, using the computerized system, the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system based on the inputs from the plurality of virtual observers
The limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts. The limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
As to the limitations “generating, from a computerized system, a three-dimensional (3D) illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system for use in a real-world engineering project based on photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters and information of a site environment of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system, wherein the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters comprise a wiring diagram comprising electrical data, wherein the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system arranges a plurality of cables, wherein each cable of the plurality of cables specifies a degree of bending based on its bend radius”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are a mental concept. A human mind is capable of generating a 3D illustration from a computer, as recited generically in the claims, such as (e.g., mentally arranging cables with degrees of bending based on their bend radius). These activities can be characterized as entailing a user illustrating that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Examiner notes that claim reads “generating, from a computerized system, a three-dimensional (3D) illustration".
As to the updating the illustration limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are a mental concept. A human mind is capable of illustrating in 3D, as recited generically in the claims. These activities can be characterized as entailing a user illustrating that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 21, Step 2A, Prong Two: As to the additional element computerized system, it is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations "arranging the plurality of cables in the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system according to the information of the site environment and the degree of bending based on each cable's bend radius", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
As to the limitations "receiving, from the computerized system, inputs corresponding to photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation operations from the plurality of virtual observers, wherein the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation operations comprise measuring an actual length of cable of the plurality of cables used in the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system". These limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. As to the limitations "displaying, using the computerized system, the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system to a plurality of virtual observers individually based on a field of view (FOV) of each virtual observer of the plurality of virtual observers", they are considered generic displaying. As to the limitations "displaying, using the computerized system, the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system to a plurality of virtual observers individually based on a field of view (FOV) of each virtual observer of the plurality of virtual observers", the specification reads (underline emphasis added): "[0169]… computer system 700 also may comprise… output devices 720, which may comprise without limitation a display device". Data gathering and displaying have not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. They are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. See Electric Power.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 21, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claim recites the additional element computerized system. It is recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The limitations are so broad that nothing is known about how the claimed "arranging the plurality of cables in the 3D illustration" is performed. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim recites data gathering and displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 26, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 26, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites
for illustration of a photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system…
generating, from a computerized system, a three-dimensional (3D) illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system determined based on photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters, wherein the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system arranges a plurality of brackets, wherein each bracket of the plurality of brackets specifies an orientation, height, and rotation angle
The limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts. The limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
As to the limitations “generating, from a computerized system, a three-dimensional (3D) illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system determined based on photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters, wherein the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system arranges a plurality of brackets, wherein each bracket of the plurality of brackets specifies an orientation, height, and rotation angle”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are a mental concept. A human mind is capable of generating a 3D illustration from a computer, as recited generically in the claims, such as (e.g., mentally arranging brackets specifying an orientation, height, and rotation angle). These activities can be characterized as entailing a user illustrating that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Examiner notes that claim reads “generating, from a computerized system, a three-dimensional (3D) illustration".
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 26, Step 2A, Prong Two: As to the additional element computerized system, it is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations "receiving, from the computerized system, inputs corresponding to an inquiry of information of equipment or processes of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system, wherein the inputs comprise requesting a cross-sectional detail of a component of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system". These limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. As to the limitations "displaying, using the computerized system, the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system to a virtual observer based on a field of view (FOV) of the virtual observer" and "providing, using the computerized system, feedback responsive to the inputs to show the cross-sectional detail of the component", they are considered generic displaying. As to the limitations "displaying, using the computerized system, the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system to a virtual observer based on a field of view (FOV) of the virtual observer", the specification reads (underline emphasis added): "[0169]… computer system 700 also may comprise… output devices 720, which may comprise without limitation a display device". Examiner interprets providing feedback as displaying, since it is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description. Data gathering and displaying have not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. They are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. See Electric Power.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 26, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claim recites the additional element computerized system. It is recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim recites data gathering and displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claim 29 recites substantially the same elements as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons above. Further, the additional elements of this claim are rejected below:
Independent claim 29, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: Claim recites the additional element computer-readable medium at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Claim 38 recites substantially the same elements as claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons above. Further, the additional elements of this claim are rejected below:
Independent claim 38, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: Claim recites the additional element computer-readable medium at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Claim 49 recites substantially the same elements as claim 21 and is rejected for the same reasons above. Further, the additional elements of this claim are rejected below:
Independent claim 49, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: Claim recites the additional element computer-readable medium at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Claim 54 recites substantially the same elements as claim 26 and is rejected for the same reasons above. Further, the additional elements of this claim are rejected below:
Independent claim 54, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: Claim recites the additional element computer-readable medium at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims limitations further the mental concepts of their independent claims. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power. (See Independent claims, Step 2A, Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Dependent claims, Step 2A Prong two: Claims recite "23/51… wherein illustrating the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system to a plurality of virtual observers individually further comprises: tracking eye movements, facial expression, or both, of at least one virtual observer of the plurality of virtual observers", "24/52… wherein inputs corresponding to photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation operations comprises: marking bracket component models illustrated in the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system", "25/53… wherein updating the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system based on the inputs from the plurality of virtual observers further comprises marking typical bracket component models within the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system according to the inputs", and "28/56… wherein the inputs are received through tracking hand movements of the virtual observer". These limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”. (See Independent claims 1, 10, 21, 26, Step 2A Prong two above). As to the limitations "9/37… wherein the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system comprises a 3D exclusive rendered video, a 3D exclusive page diagram, or both, wherein the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system indicates the actual photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters", "14/42… wherein providing feedback responsive to the input further comprises: in response to the inputs being correct, providing a first response", "15/43… wherein the first response comprises sound effects, text prompt, vibration, or any combination thereof", they are considered generic displaying. (See Independent claims 10, 21, 26, Step 2A Prong two above).
As to the limitations "4/32… wherein generating the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system further comprises: modeling components of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system, wherein the components comprise photovoltaic modules; positioning at least one of the modeled components in the 3D illustration; and connecting the photovoltaic modules in the 3D illustration", "5/33… wherein connecting the photovoltaic modules comprises series connections; jump connections; polarity connections; or any combination thereof", "6/34… wherein generating the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system further comprises: routing the cables connecting at least some of the modeled components in the 3D illustration; and binding the cables in the 3D illustration according to on-site requirements", "7/35… wherein generating the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system further comprises: performing material mapping based on extracting textures through comparisons with images of actual site; performing model photography by simulating from various camera angles; and performing post-rendering adjustments", the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claims recite data gathering and displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See Section 2106.05(f) [R-10.2019] of the MPEP.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 21, 23-26, 28-35, 37, 38, 40-43, 49, 51-54, and 56 are allowable over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No reference taken either alone or in combination and with the prior art of record discloses
claims 1 and 29, "… initial photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation parameters comprise a wiring diagram… 3D illustration of the… wiring system arranges… cables, wherein each… specifies a degree of bending based on its bend radius… determining an actual total cable length… of cables from the 3D illustration for the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system",
claims 10 and 38, "… 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system arranges… brackets, wherein each… specifies an orientation, height, and rotation angle… displaying… 3D illustration… to a virtual observer based on a field of view (FOV) of the virtual observer… receiving… inputs corresponding to… installation operations from the virtual observer… providing… feedback responsive to the inputs… an indication of the inputs being correct…",
claims 21 and 49, "… installation parameters comprise a wiring diagram… 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system arranges… cables, wherein each… specifies a degree of bending based on its bend radius; displaying… the 3D illustration… to… virtual observers individually based on a… FOV) of each virtual observer… receiving… inputs… measuring an actual length of… cables… updating… the 3D illustration… based on the inputs…",
and claims 26 and 54, "… 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system arranges… brackets, wherein each… specifies an orientation, height, and rotation angle; displaying… the 3D illustration… to a virtual observer based on a… FOV… receiving… an inquiry of information of equipment or processes… requesting a cross-sectional detail of a component… providing… feedback responsive to the inputs…",
in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine none of these references to meet these limitations. It is for these reasons that Applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, the amendment corrected all deficiencies, and those objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 16, next to last paragraph to page 19, 1st paragraph):
‘… the presently amended claim 1 is analogous to the claims found patent-eligible in McRO…
Just as the McRO claims used specific rules to automate lip synchronization tasks that could not be automated, the present claims use installation parameters, information of a site environment, and a degree of bending in cables from each cable's bend radius to automatically arrange cables in a 3D illustration. This accurate arrangement of cables is used to determine an actual cable length. That way, a cable length is determined with greater precision that would be required for a real-world engineering project. Claim 1 recites… a specific way to solve the problem of accurate determination of cable length.
The specification explains the advantages of using 3D modeling over 2D blueprints/drawings. See application as-filed, ¶ [0034]. "3D modeling provides a more accurate representation of real- world scenarios." See id."With 3D modeling, cable lengths can be determined with greater precision. Furthermore, it allows for specifying bend radii for particular cables, preventing potential damage due to excessive bending." See id. The specification further elaborates, "This solution leverages 3D modeling techniques to precisely emulate the real-world conditions of the site. A notable feature of this approach is its ability to accurately calculate cable lengths required on-site and ensure they meet the established standards." See application as-filed, ¶ [0037]. The specification additionally explains the technical advantages of the claimed approach over traditional 2D blueprints/drawings. "Such detailed modeling/illustration not only reduces the learning curve for installers (e.g., construction workers) but also diminishes the likelihood of installation errors." See application as-filed, ¶ [0034]. "This precision not only optimizes the material usage but also ensures the reliability and efficiency of the solar power installations." See application as-filed, ¶ [0037].
… claim 1 is analogous to the claims found patent-eligible by the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr… any mathematical algorithm or mental algorithm in the claimed limitations were applied to an industrial practical application of determining an actual cable length to be used in a real-world engineering project… the claimed limitations in claim 1 similarly recite obtaining installation parameters that comprise a wiring diagram comprising electrical data, generating a 3D illustration of the PV panel array current distribution wiring system based on the installation parameters and site environment information with cables specifying a degree of bending based on their bend radii, and automatically arranging the cables in the 3D illustration according to the site environment information and the degree of bending. This combination of claimed limitations allows for a plurality of cables in 3D space to be precisely arranged that accounts for their unique bend radii and unique geographical environments and terrain so that an actual cable length can be precisely determined from the 3D modeling. This is similar to the claims in Diehr that produced properly cured rubber, where the present claims determine an actual cable length that effects a real-world engineering project for optimizing material usage, reliability, and efficiency in solar power installations…’
As pointed out by Applicant, the application description reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0034]… With 3D modeling, cable lengths can be determined with greater precision…
[0037]… A notable feature of this approach is its ability to accurately calculate cable lengths required on-site and ensure they meet the established standards.'
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
'2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019]... the "improvements" analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity… the word "improvements" in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B...'.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because claim 1 may provide improved math ('cable lengths can be determined with greater precision… calculate cable lengths required on-site') but does not provide limitations such that an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or to any other technology is realized. Improved math is a species of the genus math and is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or to any other technology. An improved abstract idea is a species of the genus abstract idea. The claimed invention lacks “improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field". See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and application description [0034] & [0037] supra.
As to Applicant’s analogy to McRO, Applicant's analogy fails. McRO is the automation of specific physical actions and “applying said final stream of output morph weight sets to a sequence of animated characters to produce lip synchronization and facial expression control of said animated characters”. The McRO claims are directed to automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules and not abstract ideas. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters" that previously could only be produced by human animators). The instant claims show no automation of specific physical actions nor show applying any math towards physical actions. Contrary to Applicant's argument, the claimed 'specific way to solve the problem of accurate determination of cable length', as argued, is substantially drawn to abstract ideas, which are not physical actions as in McRO. Therefore, the claimed invention is clearly distinguished from that of McRO.
As to Applicant’s arguments about Diehr, the claims in Diehr recited a particular physical transformation of a particular article, i.e., “raw, uncured synthetic rubber, into a different state or thing” (see Diehr page 184, 3rd paragraph). By contrast, the claimed invention is directed to 'a specific way to solve the problem of accurate determination of cable length', as argued, without significantly more. The claimed invention is clearly distinguished from that of Diehr.
Applicant further argues (see page 19, 2nd paragraph to page 21, 1st paragraph):
'… claim 10 is analogous to the claims found patent-eligible in McRO. As summarized above, the claimed rules in McRO enabled automation of lip synchronization that previously required effort by animators. The claimed operations in the present application enable computer-assisted interactions for photovoltaic wiring system design and installation that previously required effort by installers (e.g., construction workers). See application as-filed, ¶¶ [0001] and [0034]. (Emphasis added). The computer-assisted interactions provide step-by-step procedures to train users in the installation process steps for photovoltaic module installation. See application as-filed, ¶ [0067]. "This training provides installers with an intuitive and clear understanding of the entire installation process without needing prior physical contact with the actual materials." See application as-filed, ¶ [0066]. Quantifiable technical improvements in McRO are also found in the present application, where "efficiency during the actual construction is enhanced and the probability of errors is reduced" by the computer-assisted interactions for photovoltaic wiring system design and installation. See application as-filed, ¶ [0066]. Just as McRO highlighted the challenges of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization, the present application highlights the challenges of accurate and realistic photovoltaic module installation. See application as-filed ¶¶ [0034], [0066], and [0067]. And similar to McRO's use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes to address the challenge of accurate and realistic lip synchronization, claim 10 uses a generated 3D illustration that accurately and realistically arranges a plurality of brackets specifying certain orientations, heights, and rotation angles, displays that 3D illustration to a virtual observer, receives user inputs for installation operations for positioning the brackets, and automatically adjusts the photovoltaic module to an ideal state for installation if the inputs are correct. Such computer-assisted operations using a virtual observer provide accurate and realistic training to installers for installation of photovoltaic modules. This is not merely claiming the idea of photovoltaic module installation, but it is claiming a specific way to solve the problem of accurate and realistic photovoltaic module installation using computer-assisted interactions. Such computer-assisted interactions are illustrated, for example, in FIGS. 2E-2G and FIGS. 2H-2K of the application as-filed.
… In DDR Holdings, the court ruled that "[u]nlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink . .. the claims recite an invention that is not merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet." Similarly, the claimed limitations at issue in claim 10 specify how computer-assisted interactions with a 3D model of a solar farm are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that produces a photovoltaic module in an ideal state from user interactions on a plurality of brackets at specific orientations, heights, and rotation angles. Such a result does not arise from routine and conventional uses of a computer. And like the dual source hybrid webpage created in DDR Holdings, the ordered combination of elements in claim 10 produce a photovoltaic module in an ideal state in a 3D illustration that is useful for training installers (e.g., construction workers) in the photovoltaic installation process…'
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]… (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"…’.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because as to the limitations "automatically adjusting an angle and position of the photovoltaic module to an ideal state in the 3D illustration", they are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations. These claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. There is no elaboration of any special meanings for these amended limitations in the claims and Application description. See specification paragraph [0068]. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) supra and Independent claim 10, Step 2B above).
Furthermore, Applicant argues 'The computer-assisted interactions provide step-by-step procedures to train users in the installation process steps for photovoltaic module installation. See application as-filed, ¶ [0067]. "This training provides installers', but the claims themselves are mute about such argued features. The claims must stand on their own. Examiner is not allowed to bring limitations set forth in the description into the claims.
As to Applicant’s arguments about DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, (DDR hereinafter), they are not applicable, because the claimed invention does not address problems unique to the Internet. Therefore, the claimed invention is clearly distinguished from that of DDR. MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022] reads:
‘Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis… DDR… provides an example of additional elements that favored eligibility because they were more than well-understood routine conventional activities in the field. The claims in DDR… were directed to systems and methods of generating a composite webpage that combines certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third-party merchant… the claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, which differed from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol that transported the user away from the host’s webpage to the third party’s webpage when the hyperlink was activated… Thus, the claims in DDR… were eligible’.
Applicant further argues (see page 21, next to last paragraph to page 23, last paragraph):
'… Similar to the McRO… Claim 21 recites a specific technical approach to determine an actual cable length… This is not merely claiming the idea of determining an actual cable length or cable management, but it is claiming a specific way to solve the problem of accurate determination of cable length and cable management.
The specification explains the advantages of using 3D modeling over 2D blueprints/drawings. See application as-filed, ¶ [0034]. "3D modeling provides a more accurate representation of real- world scenarios." See id."With 3D modeling, cable lengths can be determined with greater precision. Furthermore, it allows for specifying bend radii for particular cables, preventing potential damage due to excessive bending." See id. The specification further elaborates, "This solution leverages 3D modeling techniques to precisely emulate the real-world conditions of the site. A notable feature of this approach is its ability to accurately calculate cable lengths required on-site and ensure they meet the established standards." See application as-filed, ¶ [0037]. The specification additionally explains the technical advantages of the claimed approach over traditional 2D blueprints/drawings. "Such detailed modeling/illustration not only reduces the learning curve for installers (e.g., construction workers) but also diminishes the likelihood of installation errors." See application as-filed, ¶ [0034]. "This precision not only optimizes the material usage but also ensures the reliability and efficiency of the solar power installations." See application as-filed, ¶ [0037]. These kinds of quantifiable technical improvements are similar to the technical improvements demonstrated in McRO.
The specification further discloses that the computer-assisted interactions enable users and virtual observers to install photovoltaic modules and connect cables both intuitively and easily. See application as-filed, ¶ [0070]. "The entire process feels very realistic, leaving a profound impression on users and thus enhancing the training effect." See id. With realistic and accurate cables arranged in a 3D model, users can easily interact with the 3D model and manage cable routing and cable bundling that is useful for training installers on photovoltaic module installation. These kinds of computer-assisted interactions are illustrated, for example, in FIGS. 2M-2Z.
… claim 21 is analogous to the claims found patent-eligible by the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr… this combination of claimed limitations allows for manipulation of the cables in 3D space for training installation of photovoltaic modules. This is similar to the claims in Diehr that produced properly cured rubber, where the present claims determine an actual cable length that effects a real-world engineering project for optimizing material usage, reliability, training, and efficiency in solar power installations…'
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are the same as Applicant’s arguments for claim 1 which have been refuted above
Claim 21 does not read the details of ¶ [0070], as argued. Claim 21 does read "displaying… to a plurality of virtual observers individually based on a field of view (FOV) of each virtual observer of the plurality of virtual observers; receiving, from the computerized system, inputs corresponding to photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system installation operations from the plurality of virtual observers… updating, using the computerized system, the 3D illustration of the photovoltaic panel array current distribution wiring system based on the inputs from the plurality of virtual observers". Applicant's Specification ¶ [0070] may provide an explanation of "VR", "training process", and "allows the users/virtual observers to install photovoltaic modules and connect cables both intuitively and easily. After the users/virtual observers perform operations, VR immediately provides multidimensional feedback, including visual, auditory, and tactile sensations", but no such details are included in the claim. No skilled artisan would interpret these argued features as claimed features, because the claims themselves are mute about such argued features. The claims must stand on their own. Examiner is not allowed to bring limitations set forth in the description into the claims. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the Specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the Specification into the claims. See Synopsys2 at page 20, 2nd paragraph, citing Accenture: 'The § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves. See Accenture3… (admonishing that “the important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim”); see also Content Extraction4'.
Applicant further argues (see page 24, 1st paragraph to page 25, last paragraph):
‘… claim 26 is analogous to the claims found patent-eligible in McRO… The computer-assisted interactions achieve "real- time interaction within the virtual model scene of typical bracket components." See application as- filed, ¶ [0124]. This kind of interaction allows for "gaining the most authentic feel for each section of cable length while also enhancing interactivity and enjoyment." See application as-filed, ¶ [0130]. Quantifiable technical improvements in McRO are also found in the present application, where "efficiency during the actual construction is enhanced, and the probability of errors is reduced" by the real-time interactions for photovoltaic wiring system design and installation in a virtual model scene. See application as-filed, ¶¶ [0066] and [0124]. Just as McRO highlighted the challenges of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization, the present application highlights the challenges of accurate and realistic photovoltaic module installation. See application as-filed, ¶¶ [0034], [0066], and [0067]. Additionally, similar to McRO's use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes to address the challenge of accurate and realistic lip synchronization, claim 26 uses a generated 3D illustration that accurately and realistically arranges a plurality of brackets specifying certain orientations, heights, and rotation angles, displays that 3D illustration to a virtual observer, receives user inputs for requesting cross-sectional detail of a component, and automatically provides feedback that shows the requested cross-sectional detail of the component in the virtual environment…
… claim 26 is analogous to the claims found patent-eligible by DDR Holdings…’
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because claim 26 does not read the details of "[0124]… simulating typical bracket component on-site scenarios where multiple customers/user/virtual observers may simultaneously cooperate and/or operate on a same 3D modeling project and achieving real-time interaction within the virtual model scene of typical bracket components" and "[0130]… In the virtual world platform scene, customers can personally measure the length of different cables on a typical bracket", as argued. Applicant's Specification ¶ [0124] and [0130] may provide simulations where multiple virtual observers may simultaneously cooperate and/or operate on a same 3D modeling project and achieve real-time interaction within virtual world platform scenes where customers can personally measure the length of different cables, but no such details are included in the claim. No skilled artisan would interpret these argued features as claimed features, because the claims themselves are mute about such argued features. The claims must stand on their own. Examiner is not allowed to bring limitations set forth in the description into the claims.
As to Applicant’s arguments about DDR, they are not applicable, because the claimed invention does not address problems unique to the Internet. Therefore, the claimed invention is clearly distinguished from that of DDR.
As to Applicant’s arguments, (see page 26, 1st to 4th paragraphs), they are the same as Applicant’s arguments for claims 1, 10, 21, 26, which have been refuted above.
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.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 7:00 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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
2 Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (Fed. Cir. October 17, 2016)
3 Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
4 Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2014)