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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of the 101 analysis, all claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 is rejected in response to the following analysis:
At Step 2A Prong One, the judicial exceptions are bolded in the copy of claim 1 below:
A system comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions; and
one or more processors coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive first retraction data comprising a first retraction time associated with a first retraction process of a solar collector from a first position to a second position;
retrieve reference data comprising a reference retraction time associated with a retraction process of the solar collector from the first position to the second position based on the received first retraction data;
calculate a first settling time associated with the first retraction process of the solar collector based on the first retraction time and the reference retraction time;
detect a first anomaly in a functionality of one or more joints of the solar collector based on the calculated first settling time; and
output a first alert based on the detected first anomaly.
Calculating a first settling time based on the first retraction time and the reference retraction time, and detecting the first anomaly based on the first settling time, represent mathematical or mental operations depending on complexity.
At Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements include the components of a general-purpose computer, which is configured to receive data related to a solar collector retracting from a first to a second position, and which outputs an alert based on the determined anomaly. This describes mere data gathering and extra-solution activity performed by a general-purpose computer.
When considered as a whole, claim 1 is encompassed by a computer which obtains information about how long it took for a solar collector to rotate from one position to another position, then compares this to a reference and detects an anomaly in the functioning of joints based on how long the rotation took relative to the reference. An alert is then sent. The alert does not lead to any further action. While the context of the invention is in the field of solar collectors, actual possession of a solar collector or sensors is not required. Instead, a computer receives pre-existing data, operates on the data, and provides an alert. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the reasons given above.
Claim 2 recites performing largely the same process as claim 1 and is therefore also rejected.
Claim 3 recites a failure detection and alert based on one or more of the first or second anomalies, however this does not address the issues that neither a solar collector nor any sensor collecting data is recited, nor is the result used for any task. Claim 3 is therefore also rejected.
Claims 4-5 give more details about the data collected but do not change the issues of claim 1, therefore these claims are also rejected.
Claims 6-7 describe how the solar collection rotation data is compared with references and thresholds to determine whether an anomaly is present, but does not change the issues of claim 1. These claims are therefore also rejected.
Claim 8 recites receiving user input associated with an initiation of the first retraction process. This does not require actual possession of the solar collector and sensors (the user input could be to ask for the retraction data from an already-performed retraction process; such input would be associated with the initiation time of said retraction process), therefore the issues of claim 1 persist and claim 8 is rejected.
Claim 9 recites storing the first settling time in one or more databases. This does not address the issues of claim 1, therefore claim 9 is also rejected.
Claims 10-18 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-9, respectively.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 4, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCutcheon (US 20230146184 A1) in view of Okuaki (US 20170102000 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McCutcheon discloses a system comprising:
a solar collector (Abstract: a solar panel base is configured to support one or more solar panels). McCutcheon also discloses that the solar collector can rotate on a ball joint to track the sun (¶8; see also ¶7 which describes a motor enabling the solar panels to rotate along x- and y-axes).
McCutcheon does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
Okuaki discloses a motor derive device which can detect a fan malfunction (Abstract). It detects the rotation speed of a fan over time, from when a signal was given to change its rotation speed (Abstract). The rotation speed over time is compared to a standard, and a malfunction is determined if the rotation speed over time is different from the standard (Abstract).
An example of this is given in Figs. 5-6. At S1, a rotation speed changing command is given (see also ¶61 and Fig. 5; R4 to R5). At S2, the rotation speed at the time of the command is collected (see also ¶63). At S3, a time period is determined (t4 to t5 in Fig. 5). At S4, after the time period has elapsed, rotation speed is collected again. At S5, the rotation speed/time relationship is acquired. At S6, it is determined whether this relationship is different from a standard by more than a threshold (see ¶73 and ¶75; in Fig. 5, it is determined if the change in rotation speed is smaller than a threshold). At S7 and S8, if the difference is greater than the threshold, a malfunction is generated and a user is alerted.
Okuaki teaches that when a fan is in a malfunctioning state, it rotates more slowly than in an ideal case when a command to start rotating is given (see Fig. 5; also ¶36-¶37, the solid line 38 represents normal operation and the broken line 40 represents a malfunctioning rotator when foreign substances are attached to the rotator).
Okuaki also discloses a CPU and a memory (¶26, the CPU; and ¶32, the memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Okuaki with the invention of McCutcheon by causing the system to include a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive first retraction data comprising a first retraction time associated with a first retraction process of a solar collector from a first position to a second position;
retrieve reference data comprising a reference retraction time associated with a retraction process of the solar collector from the first position to the second position based on the received first retraction data;
detect a first anomaly in a functionality of one or more joints of the solar collector; and
output a first alert based on the detected first anomaly.
Doing so would enable one to compare the rotation of a solar collector with its typical behavior and, if the rotation is slower than it ought to be, alert a user of a possible malfunction of the rotating element (i.e. the one or more joints, for example due to foreign substances).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to calculate a first settling time associated with the first retraction process of the solar collector based on the first retraction time and the reference retraction time; and to base the first anomaly detection on the calculated first settling time. Doing so would enable one to determine a time difference (the “settling time”) between the first retraction process and the reference and, if the difference is greater than some threshold, output the alert. Conditioning the alert on the difference being over a threshold would ensure that an alert is not given when the difference is negligible and not indicative of a malfunction.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the method applied by the system of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites a computer programmable product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to carry out the method of claim 10. Claim 19 is therefore also rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, McCutcheon in view of Okuaki teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively. Furthermore, the limitations of claims 2 and 11 describe an application of the same method as claim 1 to a second retraction event. Considering that McCutcheon in view of Okuaki would be motivated to monitor its solar collectors over time to detect malfunctions when they occur, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, McCutcheon in view of Okuaki teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 11, respectively, and further teaches detecting a failure in the functionality of the one or more joints of the solar collector based on at least one of the detected first anomaly and the detected second anomaly, and outputting a failure alert based on the detected failure of the one or more joints of the solar collector (a malfunction is a failure of the functionality in the one or more joints; see rejection of claim 1). Furthermore, while McCutcheon in view of Okuaki does not explicitly teach detecting a failure based on both the detected first anomaly and the detected second anomaly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of McCutcheon in view of Okuaki to do so to notify a user of a persisting malfunction that has yet to be addressed.
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 20, McCutcheon in view of Okuaki teaches the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 20, respectively. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to cause the first retraction data to further comprise first position information associated with the first position, second position information associated with the second position, a first timestamp associated with an initiation of the first retraction process, a second timestamp associated with an ending of the first retraction process, speed information associated with the first retraction process, or slope information associated with the solar collector. The first and second position data and the first and second timestamps, and the angular speed information, and the angle/time slope information, would all enable one to measure how quickly the first retraction process occurred compared to a reference (Note from Fig. 5 of Okuaki that the malfunctioning motor can be detected by considering either: 1. the time it took to speed up to the final speed compared with a normal case; 2. the average angular speed over t4 to t5 compared to the normal case; or 3. the rotation rate/time slope compared to the normal case.).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, McCutcheon in view of Okuaki teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to cause the reference data to include first position information associated with the first position, second position information associated with the second position, or a reference retraction slope of the solar collector. The first and second position information would enable one to compare the appropriate reference retraction time to the first retraction time (that is, if measuring how long it takes to rotate from angle a1 to a2, the reference time compared to should reflect a normal time for rotating between angles a1 and a2, rather than angles b1 and b2 where b1
≠
a1, b2
≠
a2.). The reference retraction slope would be useful for determining if the average rotation rate of the first retraction process was fast enough.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, McCutcheon in view of Okuaki teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively, and further teaches comparing the first settling time associated with the first retraction process of the solar collector with a threshold settling time; and detecting the first anomaly in the functionality of the one or more joints of the solar collector based on the comparison (see rejection of claim 1, arguing that it would have been obvious to determine if the time difference between the first retraction process and the reference is above a threshold).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, McCutcheon in view of Okuaki teaches the limitations of claims 6 and 15, respectively, and further teaches that the first anomaly detection is based on a determination that the first settling time is greater than the threshold settling time (again, see rejection of claim 1, arguing that it would have been obvious to determine if the time difference between the first retraction process and the reference is above a threshold).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, McCutcheon in view of Okuaki teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively, but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claims 8 and 17. Okuaki does teach that a user can provide input to perform a malfunction inspection (¶56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of McCutcheon in view of Okuaki to cause the system/method to receive a user input associated with an initiation of the first retraction process of the solar collector from the first position to the second position; and receive the first retraction data based on the received user input. Doing so would enable a user to test a particular joint for a malfunction.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, McCutcheon in view of Okuaki teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to store the calculated first settling time associated with the first retraction process of the solar collector in one or more databases in order to retain information about malfunction tests over time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Birang (US 6623334 B1) discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstract). Birang teaches that friction acts to slow rotation (Column 5, lines 38-52: a motor attempts to rotate a platen at a constant rotation rate. If the coefficient of friction of a polishing pad decreases, the motor will need to supply less current to maintain the rotation at the standard rotation rate).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
