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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search for the system also encompasses a search for the method. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search (computer memory and processors vs. method steps), the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention (a reference teaching method steps may have not information about computer memory or processors).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites the limitation “A system comprising: processor configured to…”. It appears the limitation is missing an article (“a”) prior to “processor”. Accordingly, it is suggested that the recitation be amended to read: “A system comprising: a processor…”.
Claim 4 recites “the fourth parameter is indicative of the total magnitude of rotational misalignment between the first tracker of the PV power plant and the second tracker of the PV power plant is determined…”. As best as the examiner can tell, the recitation should read “the fourth parameters is indicative of the total magnitude of rotational misalignment between the first tracker of the PV power plant and the second tracker of the PV power plant and is determined…”.
Claim 5 recites “the sixth parameters is indicative of the magnitude of the total rotational angular misalignment of the first tracker is determined…”. As best as the examiner can tell, the recitation should read “the sixth parameters is indicative of the magnitude of the total rotational angular misalignment of the first tracker and is determined…”.
Claim 6 recites “the seventh parameter is indicative of the magnitude of the total rotational angular misalignment of the second tracker is determined…”. As best as the examiner can tell, the recitation should read “the seventh parameter is indicative of the magnitude of the total rotational angular misalignment of the second tracker and is determined…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of obtaining information, determining, calculating and rendering sets of parameters associated with a flexible bridge part of a solar tracker. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the obtaining, determining and rendering steps are considered mathematical concepts.
Claim 1 is directed to a system for determining parameters associated with a flexible bridge. Claim 19 is directed to a computer programmable product for determining parameters associated with a flexible bridge. Therefore Claims 1, 19, and their respective dependent claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, the claims only require performing calculation steps using mathematical parameters to determine alignment between an electronic device and a solar panel.
Regarding the limitations of “obtain …” and “determine …”, the Examiner submits that these limitations consist of using mathematical concepts as included in an abstract idea.
Regarding the additional limitations of “processor”, the Examiner submits that this limitation utilizes a generic computer (a processor) to perform the process.
Regarding the limitation of “obtain, from a user device, a user input …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “rendering…”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of insignificant extra-solution activity, which is performed by a generic computer (a processor system) to perform the process of providing information relating to gaps, overlaps, slope, and angular difference between adjacent modules.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner notes that claims 2 and 20 recite “wherein the first tracker and the second tracker tracks a movement of the sun in one axis”. The structure of the trackers themselves are not part of the claimed system or computer programmable product, only as elements that are used to generate the first set of parameters; indeed the claims do not recite that the rendered parameters are applied to a tracking function.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements (processor, computer programmable product) that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because the claims involve implementing mathematical concepts to calculate offset, gap, and angular misalignment of adjacent solar panels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0051145 teaches an automated system for installing solar panels.
US 9,020,636 teaches an automated system for precise positioning of solar panels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights