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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 08/12/2026.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 are still pending.
3. Claims 2, 11 and 20 were cancelled.
4. Applicant's amendments to claims are accepted because do not introduce new matter pursuant to MPEP 2163.
5. The drawings filed on 08/14/2024 have been accepted.
II. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and not found persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
7. Page(s) 9, the Applicant(s) argues that “It is therefore, respectfully submitted that by the inclusion of structure, ... obtained from the sensors and transmitted to various structural elements, the claims clearly are outside the judicial exception and as such are allowable”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) do not recite a particular machine/device, the additional elements/limitations is/are simply well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry despite the fact that include concrete components and not only mathematical calculations or mental steps. Therefore, do not amount to significantly more and fall in the concept of extra-solution activities and a field of use pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(b) I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS; MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity; and MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity; and 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
7.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 7 above.
2106.05(b) Particular Machine, … III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more ... Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine …
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, 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. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high
level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility …
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, 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. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility ...
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process ... An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent … As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine if the additional elements add to significantly more than the abstract-idea by determining whether the additional elements are claiming a specifically identified particular device with sufficient particular structure (i.e. dimensions, shape, length, angles of arrangements, etc.) and not the general and basic structure of any and all machines, and/or, whether said additional elements fall into the concept of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception either pre-solution or post-solution activities, which includes that such additional elements to be recited at a high level of generality that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry; and whether said additional elements is amount to more than generally linked to a field of use and technological environment consideration.
With regards to the particularity of a machine under 2106.05(b), the instant application does not claim a particular machine, it simply claims a user device having an alert, a set of solar panels, a set of sensors, one or more trackers of the tilt angle of the set of solar panels and a memory with a high degree of generality that could not be considered a particular machine/devices because they all lack particular description that includes but are not limited their dimensions, shapes, lengths, angles of arrangements, structure forming them, etc. For example, the user device having an alert (see ASKARPOUR, Shahram (Publication No.: WO 2023/031843 that is the Pub. No.: US 2025/0125769 (hereinafter mentioned as “Askarpour”), paragraph [0002], which was used as main reference in the PCT rejection and provided in the previous office action) and (see Caine (Publication No.: US 2016/0190984 (hereinafter mentioned as “Caine”), paragraphs [0099], [0119], [0135] with Fig. 15); the set of solar panels (see Askarpour, paragraph [0128]) and (see Caine, paragraph [0069]); set of sensors (see Askarpour, paragraph [0081] and/or claim-1]) and (see Caine, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0069]-[0070]); the one or more trackers of the tilt angle of the set of solar panels (see Creasy et al. (Publication No.: US 2022/0123689 (hereinafter mentioned as “Creasy”), paragraphs [0052], [0069]) and (see Berrios et al. (Publication No.: US 2013/0006435 (hereinafter mentioned as “Berrios”), paragraph [0056]); the memory (see Askarpour, paragraph [0080]) and (see Caine, paragraph [0068]).
With regards to the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g), the instant application, the independent claims simply recites the additional claim elements/limitations “obtain first information comprising location information associated with the set of solar panels and configuration information associated with the set of solar panels; obtain, from the set of sensors, second information comprising real-time operating parameters associated with the set of solar panels based on the obtained first information; ... renders an alert on the user device” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry”), which are insignificant extra-solution activities that fall into the category of well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known to the systems and a methods for inspecting spot welding industry.
The prior art evidence in support that additional elements are extra solution activities (Pre-solution and Post-solution) as follows:
The prior art evidence in support that additional elements are extra solution activities (Pre-solution and Post-solution) as follows:
The independent claim(s) recites the limitation(s) “obtain first information comprising location information associated with the set of solar panels and configuration information associated with the set of solar panels”, (see Askarpour, paragraphs [0086], [0112] and/or claim-1).
The independent claim(s) further recites the limitation(s) “obtain, from the set of sensors, second information comprising real-time operating parameters associated with the set of solar panels based on the obtained first information”, (see Askarpour, paragraphs [0081], [0003] and/or claim-1]), (Raatz, abstract and paragraph [0087] and Figs. 7A-7B), and (see Caine, Fig. 16, paragraph [0138] and [0115]).
The independent claim(s) further recites the limitation(s) “provide, as input information, the obtained first information, and the obtained second information to a machine learning model and reference information associated with the set of solar panels, wherein the machine learning model is a pre-trained model which transforms the input information to output information and determine a soiling loss associated with the set of solar panels based on the output information”, (see Abdelhakim El hendouzi, Forecasting of PV power application to PV power penetration in a micro grid, 2016 (hereinafter mentioned as “Abdelhakim”), Fig. 2 and Pages 2-3, which was provided in the previous office action) and (see Askarpour, paragraph [0112], and/or claim-3, where a predetermined learning model is taught).
The independent claim(s) further recites the limitation(s) “wherein the ML determines a soiling loss and renders an alert on the user device”, (see Askarpour, paragraph [0002]) and (see Caine, paragraphs [0099], [0119], [0135] with Fig. 15).
Furthermore, the claims at issue as a whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which have similarities in a general way with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
Furthermore, claiming structure (physical components) such as physical/tangible-elements/physical-steps do not guarantee eligibility of the claims according to the MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Therefore, the independent claim(s) simply recite the insignificant extra-solution activity related to the determination of determination of soiling loss on a set of solar panels, which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the monitoring solar panels that is performed using well well-understood and routine structure to said industry such as sensors, processors/microprocessors, data collection, etc., which do not amount to an inventive concept.
In light of the foregoing, the claim(s) are not patent eligible because in summary the additional element individually and/or in combination of elements as whole fall into the concept(s) of “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” to the judicial-exception/Abstract-idea and “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”, which do not amount to an inventive concept.
7.2 SECOND Argument in support to response to number 7 above.
2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." … Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98 … Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) …
In summary, the MPEP and the courts have found that simply linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not sufficient for the claims to be eligible.
In the instant application, the aforesaid claim(s) are simply linking the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea to the “Technological Environment” relative to monitoring solar panels as determined by the courts. Therefore, the limitations amount to merely indicating a field use, which in a general way is similar to Parker v. Flook where the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm is linked to the field/industry related to chemical conversion of hydrocarbons in which the court found the claims ineligible under 101.
Furthermore, the claims as a whole do not amount to more than estimating the result of an endurance test using conditions that are algorithms/equations themselves, using a general-purpose processor that performs machine learning tasks such as executing said abstract-idea/judicial exception.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the abstract-idea/judicial-exception involves mathematical algorithms and formulas, therefore, are not implemented into a practical application but simply linking it to a particular technological environment or field of use.
xxxxxxxx. Page(s) 9, the Applicant(s) argues that “... include the transformation of the data obtained ... the claims clearly are outside the judicial exception and as such are allowable”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) the transformation of the data as claimed do not require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing such information, as set forth in the Electric Power case that is linked to the MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)(vi) “Components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that generate new data”.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
8.1. The abbreviation/acronym/term/symbol/variable “ML” (lines 4) of claim 1 should be wrote in parenthesis after the first appearance of “machine learning model” in order to improve consistency and clarity of the claim language, or, said abbreviation/acronym/term/symbol/variable should be deleted. Thereafter, it should read “the ML model” within each set of claims, or, deleted.
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.
9. Claim 1, 3-10 and 12-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
10. Claim 1 is directed to “... provide, as input information, the obtained first information, and the obtained second information to a machine learning model and reference information associated with the set of solar panels, wherein the machine learning model is a pre-trained model which transforms the input information to output information and determine a soiling loss associated with the set of solar panels based on the output information; and wherein the ML determines a soiling loss ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A system for determination of soiling loss on a set of solar panels, comprising: a user device having an alert, a set of solar panels, a set of sensors associated with the set of solar panels, a machine learning model, one or more trackers of the tilt angle of the set of solar panels, a memory to store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory configured to: obtain first information comprising location information associated with the set of solar panels and configuration information associated with the set of solar panels; obtain, from the set of sensors, second information comprising real-time operating parameters associated with the set of solar panels based on the obtained first information; ... and renders an alert on the user device” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Dependent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
10.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a system, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
10.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “... provide, as input information, the obtained first information, and the obtained second information to a machine learning model and reference information associated with the set of solar panels, wherein the machine learning model is a pre-trained model which transforms the input information to output information and determine a soiling loss associated with the set of solar panels based on the output information; and wherein the ML determines a soiling loss ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
10.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine because the user device having an alert, set of solar panels, set of sensors, one or more trackers of the tilt angle of the set of solar panels and a memory are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the processors with its memory simply form a general purpose computer processor, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the photovoltaic PV power plant, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the photovoltaic PV power plant technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies using solar panels including but not limited to manufacturing, agriculture and farming, health, construction, telecommunication technology, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for determination of soiling loss on a set of solar panels).
10.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A system for determination of soiling loss on a set of solar panels, comprising: a user device having an alert, a set of solar panels, a set of sensors associated with the set of solar panels, a machine learning model, one or more trackers of the tilt angle of the set of solar panels, a memory to store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory configured to: obtain first information comprising location information associated with the set of solar panels and configuration information associated with the set of solar panels; obtain, from the set of sensors, second information comprising real-time operating parameters associated with the set of solar panels based on the obtained first information; ... and renders an alert on the user device” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the response(s) 7 above, prior art made of record below and on the IDS, and the prior art references used in the International Written Opinion dated 4 February 2025 for application PCT/IB2024/057898, which was submitted via IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
11. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
12. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
13. Claim 5 depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 further recites the element(s) which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
14. Claim 6 depends on claim 5 that depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 further recites the element(s) which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
15. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
16. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
17. Claim 9 depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 further recites the element(s) which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
18. Claim 10 is directed to “... providing, as input information, the obtained first information, and the obtained second information and reference information associated with the set of solar panels, to a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is a pre-trained model; transforming the input information in the machine learning model to output information; determining from the output information a soiling loss associated with the set of solar panels ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method for determination of soiling loss on a set of solar panels, comprising: providing and obtaining first information comprising location information associated with a set of solar panels of a photovoltaic (PV) power plant and configuration information associated with the set of solar panels; obtaining, from a set of sensors associated with the set of solar panels, second information comprising real-time operating parameters based on the obtained first information; ... rendering an alert based on determined soiling loss on a user device; transmitting instructions associated with cleaning of at least one solar panel of the set of solar panels based on the determined soiling loss” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Dependent claim 10 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
18.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 10 is directed to a system, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
18.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 10 recites: “... providing, as input information, the obtained first information, and the obtained second information and reference information associated with the set of solar panels, to a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is a pre-trained model; transforming the input information in the machine learning model to output information; determining from the output information a soiling loss associated with the set of solar panels ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
18.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 10 does not claim a particular machine because the solar panels of a photovoltaic PV and user device are not claimed with sufficient specificity and the method is performed by an unclaimed processors with its memory simply form a general purpose computer processor, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the photovoltaic PV power plant, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the photovoltaic PV power plant technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies using solar panels including but not limited to manufacturing, agriculture and farming, health, construction, telecommunication technology, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for determination of soiling loss on a set of solar panels).
18.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 10 recites the additional element(s) “A method for determination of soiling loss on a set of solar panels, comprising: providing and obtaining first information comprising location information associated with a set of solar panels of a photovoltaic (PV) power plant and configuration information associated with the set of solar panels; obtaining, from a set of sensors associated with the set of solar panels, second information comprising real-time operating parameters based on the obtained first information; ... rendering an alert based on determined soiling loss on a user device; transmitting instructions associated with cleaning of at least one solar panel of the set of solar panels based on the determined soiling loss” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the response(s) 7 above, prior art made of record below and on the IDS, and the prior art references used in the International Written Opinion dated 4 February 2025 for application PCT/IB2024/057898, which was submitted via IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
19. Claim 12 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 further recites the element(s) which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
19. Claim 13 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 further recites the element(s) which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
20. Claim 14 depends on claim 13 that depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 further recites the element(s) which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
21. Claim 15 depends on claim 14 that depends on claim 13 that depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 15 further recites the element(s) which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
22. Claim 16 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 further recites the element(s) which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
23. Claim 17 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 further recites the element(s) which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
24. Claim 18 depends on claim 17 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 18 further recites the element(s) which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
25. Claim 19 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 19 further recites the element(s) which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Furthermore, claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
26. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please note that any strikethrough portion of the claim language below is not taught by corresponding prior art.
a) Askarpour teaches a system, comprising:
a memory to store computer-executable instructions (see [0080]); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory (see [0080]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
obtain first information comprising location information associated with a set of solar panels of a photovoltaic (PV) power plant (see [0086], [0112] and/or claim-1)
obtain, from a set of sensors (see [0081] and/or claim-1), second information comprising (see [0072], [0090, [0121]-[0122]] and/or claim-1) (see [0081] and/or claim-1) is associated with the set of solar panels (see [0072], [0090], [0121]-[0122] and/or claim-1);
(see [0112], and/or claim-3), wherein the ML model is a pre-trained model (see [0070], [0118], and/or claim-9);
(see [0098])
b) Abdelhakim teaches a system, comprising:
a memory to store computer-executable instructions (Page-3); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory (Page-3), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
obtain first information comprising location information associated with a set of solar panels of a photovoltaic (PV) power plant and configuration information associated with the set of solar panels of the PV power plant (Page-2, location and orientation);
obtain,
provide, as an input, the obtained first information, and the obtained second information to a machine learning (ML) model (Page-2), wherein the ML model is a pre-trained model (Page-3);
c) LYTLE (Pub. No.: US 2023/0275438, which was provided in the previous office action) teaches a system, comprising:
obtain first information comprising location information associated with a set of solar panels of a photovoltaic (PV) power plant (see [0057]) and configuration information associated with the set of solar panels of the PV power plant (see [0058]).
provide, as an input, the obtained (see [0062]),
determine a soiling loss associated with the set of solar panels (see [0061])
d) TAMIZHMANI (Pub. No.: US 2023/0119076, which was provided in the previous office action) teaches “A method for inspection for a photovoltaic module or cell is disclosed. The method includes acquiring one or more polarimetric images of the photovoltaic module or cell using a camera which may include a polarization sensor, analyzing the one or more polarimetric images, and identifying a presence of a defect in the photovoltaic module or cell. A device for inspection for a photovoltaic module or cell is also disclosed, wherein the device includes a camera having a polarimetric sensor and is configured to be positioned at one or more locations relative to a location of the photovoltaic module or cell” (Abstract).
e) Joshua Martin (PV Array Soiling Detection using Machine Learning, which was provided in the previous office action) teaches “methods for identifying soiling in residential solar installations. The first method aims to calculate a daily energy-lost-due-to-soiling value by comparing two calculated power curves: the expected best case scenario curve and a weather corrected curve, which estimates what the day’s power curve would be in the absence of cloud cover. The second method compares the performance of sites in the same weather region using a multilevel k-means clustering strategy” (Abstract).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
