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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to the reply filed on 10/10/2025.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant’s remarks have been considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, applicant first argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and alleges the claims are “inseparably tied to the physical environment of a solar power plant.” This is not commensurate with scope of the method claim which requires no such limitations as it merely recites data collection and calculation steps. Further, applicant has not specifically identified what applicant considers a limitation with which argument “inseparably tied to the physical environment of a solar power plant” finds support. The claims are directed to “determining target points”. The claim limitations do nothing more than mathematically derive said points and do so using a commercial software tool to perform said limitations. The inclusion of recitations such as a heliostat field of the tower-type solar photo-thermal power station are interpreted as 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. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues the claims require a computer and as such cannot be performed in the mind and are not mental processes. This argument is not persuasive and runs counter to established guidance. Further, applicant’s specification is silent as to the terms “computer” “processor” etc. and relies solely on the use of a commercially available software tool (MATLAB®) to perform the calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) which provides that abstract ideas such as mental processes includes concepts that can be performed in the human mind (abstract ideas include concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), with or without the assistance of … a computer, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III for further discussion.
Applicant next argues the claims do not recite a mathematical concept while admitting the claims do recite a ‘non-linear optimization model’. As best understood this is not persuasive. Applicant further alleges the claims fall outside the “mathematical concepts” grouping due to the “mathematical operations are integrated into a larger process that directs heliostats to specific physical targets.” Applicant provides no specific evidence in support of this argument and as such is considered conclusory. A review of the claims finds no apparent support thus the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims and the argument is not persuasive. Examiner notes the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant next argues the claims “are plainly integrated into a practical application”. In support of this applicant alleges “…culminating in control signals that direct heliostat mirrors to safe optimized positions.” This is not persuasive as the claim merely results in a data point (Z coordinate) and is silent as to any application thereof. See the last clause of claim 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
249
1219
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Step 2B, applicant contests the claims lack significantly more because the steps result in an unconventional result and that no generic computer performs this. A review of the claims finds no apparent support thus the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims and the argument is not persuasive. Examiner notes the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For example, the claims are silent as to any “heliostats are directed in a way that mitigates the risk of non-uniform heating and structural stress during startup” and applicant has not specifically pointed to where in the claims support for this is found. Therefore the argument is not persuasive.
The claims are directed to “determining target points”. The claim limitations do nothing more than mathematically derive said points and do so using a commercial software tool to perform said limitations. Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
The rejection is maintained.
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 are 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
MPEP 2106 provides two criteria for subject matter eligibility. First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Thus the subject matter eligibility test requires two steps with the second step being of two parts.
Step 1 relates to the statutory categories and ensures that the first criterion is met by confirming that the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP § 2106.03. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention as processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. See 35 U.S.C. 100(b). See MPEP § 2106.03 for detailed information on the four categories.
Step 2, which is the Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test, is a two-part test to identify claims that are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and to then evaluate if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) (also called "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception). See MPEP § 2106.04 for more information on Step 2A and MPEP § 2106.05 for more information on Step 2B. An application of the analysis follows.
Step 1 – are the claims directed to one of the four enumerated statutory categories?
The instant application has one independent claim. Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process). Therefore the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Turning to Step 2A the analysis continues.
Step 2A – are the claims directed to a judicial exception?
Under step one of Mayo / Alice, the claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter. The first step is to determine if the claim “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and/or an abstract idea. In determining whether a claim is “directed to” an abstract claim (or law of nature), courts consider if claim’s “focus” is on the abstract idea. Uniloc (Fed. Cir. 05/24/19). Elec. Power (Fed. Cir. 08/01/16) (“the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes …. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.”). In the instant application the claims are clearly directed to an abstract idea in the form of determining and/or obtaining data (coordinates) and using the data to establish a non-linear optimization model. This is analogous to “collecting data, analyzing it, and determining the results based on the analysis of data” which was determined to be an abstract idea in Automated Tracking (Fed. Cir. 02/16/18) and also Elec. Power (Fed. Cir. 08/01/16). A claim is directed to a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim. MPEP 2106.04. MPEP § 2106.04(a) provides that abstract ideas such as mental processes includes concepts that can be performed in the human mind (abstract ideas include concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), with or without the assistance of physical aid (i.e. pen and paper, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.B, or a computer, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III for further discussion.
Step 2A, Prong one – Does the claim recite an Abstract Idea?
In the instant application the claims are considered drawn to the judicial exception of an abstract idea of a “method for determining target points of heliostats during preheating of a tower-type solar photo-thermal power station” in terms of steps or processes analogous to that which can be performed in the human mind, with or without the assistance of physical aid (i.e. pen and paper, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.B, or a computer, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C) and in terms of mathematical concepts (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). The abstract idea judicial exception includes Mental Processes, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, that includes concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, etc.). See MPEP § 2106.04(a). The courts consider a Mental Process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.A.
The claims include steps such as:
(Cl. 1) establishing a coordinate system of a heliostat field of the tower-type solar photo-thermal power station (this is mere mathematical manipulation and/or data gathering and manipulation and as such can reasonably be performed in the human mind thus is a Mental Process (thinking) and is an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.A; note that a mental process includes with or without the assistance of physical aid (i.e. pen and paper, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.B, or the use of a computer, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C));
(Cl. 1) obtaining coordinates of each heliostat according to a layout of the heliostat field of the tower-type solar photo-thermal power station (this is mere mathematical manipulation and/or data gathering and manipulation and as such can reasonably be performed in the human mind thus is a Mental Process (thinking) and is an abstract idea, id.);
(Cl. 1) obtaining vertex coordinates of each heat absorbing panel on a heat absorber according to a layout of the heat absorbers (this is mere mathematical manipulation and/or data gathering and manipulation and as such can reasonably be performed in the human mind thus is a Mental Process (thinking) and is an abstract idea, id.);
(Cl. 1) carrying out grid division for each heat absorbing panel of the heat absorber to obtain vertex coordinates of each grid (this is mere mathematical manipulation and/or data gathering and manipulation and as such can reasonably be performed in the human mind thus is a Mental Process (thinking) and is an abstract idea, id.);
(Cl. 1) obtaining an X coordinate and a Y coordinate of the target point of each heliostat on the heat absorbing panel according to the principle of minimum distance (this is mere mathematical manipulation and/or data gathering and manipulation and as such can reasonably be performed in the human mind thus is a Mental Process (thinking) and is an abstract idea, id.); and
(Cl. 1) according to the divided grids, taking a Z coordinate of the target point of each heliostat on the heat absorbing panel as an independent variable and a sum of squares of differences between an actual number of target points and an expected number of target points in each grid as an objective function to establish a non-linear optimization model, and solving the model to obtain the Z coordinate of the target point (this is mere mathematical manipulation and/or data gathering and manipulation and as such can reasonably be performed in the human mind thus is a Mental Process (thinking) and is an abstract idea, id.);
As such, the claims are reasonably understood as the judicial exception of an abstract idea categorized as “Mental Processes”, such as the term is used per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), which require the following limitations:
(Cl. 1) step 1, establishing a coordinate system of a heliostat field of the tower-type solar photo-thermal power station; step 2, obtaining coordinates of each heliostat according to a layout of the heliostat field of the tower-type solar photo-thermal power station; step 3, obtaining vertex coordinates of each heat absorbing panel on a heat absorber according to a layout of the heat absorbers; step 4, carrying out grid division for each heat absorbing panel of the heat absorber to obtain vertex coordinates of each grid; step 5, obtaining an X coordinate and a Y coordinate of the target point of each heliostat on the heat absorbing panel according to the principle of minimum distance; and step 6, according to the divided grids, taking a Z coordinate of the target point of each heliostat on the heat absorbing panel as an independent variable and a sum of squares of differences between an actual number of target points and an expected number of target points in each grid as an objective function to establish a non-linear optimization model, and solving the model to obtain the Z coordinate of the target point.
The claims recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea (grouped as Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III) as they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. None of the limitations in the claims is a limitation which cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind. Note that claims can recite a Mental Process even if they are claimed as being performed with or without the assistance of physical aid (i.e. pen and paper, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.B, or via a computer, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C). In addition, the claims recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea (grouped as Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I).
The claims include recitations directed to data gathering, i.e. obtaining coordinates of each heliostat according to a layout of the heliostat field of the tower-type solar photo-thermal power station; obtaining vertex coordinates of each heat absorbing panel on a heat absorber according to a layout of the heat absorbers; obtaining an X coordinate and a Y coordinate of the target point of each heliostat on the heat absorbing panel according to the principle of minimum distance.
These recitations are examples of a limitation that describes a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The inclusion of recitation such as a heliostat field of the tower-type solar photo-thermal power station are interpreted as 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. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2A, Prong one of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong two – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claimed recitation of “a heliostat field of the tower-type solar photo-thermal power station” (claim 1), “a center point of a mirror of the heliostat” (claim 3), “a regular n-gonal prism structure which comprises N heat absorbing panels” (claim 4) are merely claimed to generally link (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) the use of a judicial exception to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f).
In other words these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In other words, each of the claimed “a heliostat field of the tower-type solar photo-thermal power station” (claim 1), “a center point of a mirror of the heliostat” (claim 3), “a regular n-gonal prism structure which comprises N heat absorbing panels” (claim 4) is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – do the claims amount to significantly more (i.e. is there an inventive concept)?
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements.
As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements, Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
For example, the claimed “a heliostat field of the tower-type solar photo-thermal power station” is described generally in para. [0002-[0009]. This is reasonably interpreted as an indication of generic structure as no details are provided of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood to describe ubiquitous standard equipment and does not provide anything significantly more.
Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Therefore the claims do not amount to significantly more and the claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their dependency to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. T. Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached on (571) 272-8525. 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.
/J. T. Newton/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673 12/16/2025
* * * * *
Prosecution Insights