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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “generally rectangular” and “approximately circular” in claim 6 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “generally” and “approximately” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification merely states, in paragraph [0042] of the application as published “upper plate 61 is designed in a mostly rectangular shape with one of its ends in an approximately circular shape to fit the shape of the pyranometers 1 and provide better support”. This is insufficient to define terms “generally” and “approximately”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apogee Instruments Solar Mounting Bracket AL-130, Rev: 21-Apr-2022, [retrieved on July 20, 2026], retrieved from the internet: <URL: https://www.apogeeinstruments.com/content/AL-130-spec-sheet.pdf>, hereinafter “Apogee”, and further in view of Barney et al. (US 9766427 A1), hereinafter “Barney”, and Malek, Esmaiel. "Comparison between the Laser Beam Ceilometer and an Algorithm for Continuous Evaluation of Cloud Base Height and Temperature, and Cloud Coverage at Local Scale." GSTF Journal on Aviation Technology (JAT) 2.1 (2015): 1, hereinafter “Malek”.
Regarding claim 3, Apogee teaches a leveling tray (6) configured to be used with a mobile albedo measurement device (10) (page 1, overview and photograph), the leveling tray (6) comprising:
a lower plate (62) configured to be coupled to an arm (3) of an albedo measurement device (10) (shown in photograph and diagrams);
an upper plate (61) configured to have a plurality of pyranometers attached thereto (Overview, shown in photograph; in addition, this limitation is non-limiting functional as the device of Apogee could perform the function with side-by side pyranometers, similar to the disclosure of Malek, but on the same side of a single plate); and
at least three independently adjustable fastening assemblies (65) connecting the upper plate (61) to the lower plate (62) (as shown in lower diagrams),
wherein each fastening assembly (65) comprises a threaded fastener configured to bias the upper plate (61) relative to the lower plate (62) during adjustment (as shown in lower diagrams),
wherein the at least three independently adjustable fastening assemblies are configured to permit independent adjustment of the upper plate (61) relative to the lower plate (62) in three dimensions to level the upper plate and maintain the pyranometers parallel to a measurement surface, compensating for deflection of the arm or irregularities of the supporting surface (overview and shown in lower diagrams).
Apogee is silent regarding the upper plate (61) configured to have a plurality of pyranometers (1), and wherein each fastening assembly (65) comprises a threaded fastener, a nut, and a spring.
However, Barney teaches an optical leveling device (abstract) including wherein each fastening assembly comprises a threaded fastener, a nut, and a spring (Fig. 3, refs 12, 14, 18; col. 4, lines 12-25).
Furthermore, Malek teaches a pyranometer device (abstract) including an upper plate configured to have a plurality of pyranometers (Fig. 2 shows multiple pyranometers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Apogee with the teaching of Barney and Malek by including the upper plate (61) configured to have a plurality of pyranometers (1), and wherein each fastening assembly (65) comprises a threaded fastener, a nut, and a spring in order to improve the leveling capabilities of the Apogee device, while taking a plurality of simultaneous measurements.
Regarding claim 4, Apogee teaches wherein the at least three independently adjustable fastening assemblies (65) consist of three fastening assemblies (as shown in diagrams).
Regarding claim 5, Apogee teaches wherein the at least three independently adjustable fastening assemblies (65) are arranged in a non-collinear pattern (as shown in diagrams).
Regarding claim 6, Apogee teaches wherein the upper plate (61) has a generally rectangular body with one end shaped approximately circular to conform to the plurality of pyranometers and minimize shadow projection on the measurement surface (as shown in diagrams).
Regarding claim 7, Apogee teaches wherein the lower plate (62) comprises a clip (66) configured to slidably engage and secure the leveling tray to the arm (3) (as shown in photo and diagrams).
Regarding claim 8, Apogee, Barney, and Malek teach a mobile albedo measurement device (10) comprising the leveling tray of claim 3 (supra), Apogee is silent regarding a tripod (2), an arm (3) supported on the tripod (2), and a plurality of pyranometers (1) attached to the upper plate (61) of the leveling tray.
However, Malek teaches a tripod (2), an arm (3) supported on the tripod (2), and a plurality of pyranometers (1) attached to the upper plate (61) of the leveling tray (as shown in Fig. 1, page 2, cols. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Apogee with the teaching of Malek by including a tripod (2), an arm (3) supported on the tripod (2), and a plurality of pyranometers (1) attached to the upper plate (61) of the leveling tray in order to properly align the sensors
Regarding claim 13, Apogee teaches wherein the lower plate (62) comprises a clip (66) configured to slidably engage and secure the leveling tray to the arm (3) (as shown in photo and diagrams).
Regarding claim 14, Apogee is silent regarding wherein said plurality of pyranometers (1) comprises a first pyranometer pointed upwards to receive incident solar irradiation and a second pyranometer pointed downwards to receive solar radiation reflected by the measurement surface.
However, Malek teaches wherein said plurality of pyranometers (1) comprises a first pyranometer pointed upwards to receive incident solar irradiation and a second pyranometer pointed downwards to receive solar radiation reflected by the measurement surface (As shown in Figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Apogee with the teaching of Malek by including wherein said plurality of pyranometers (1) comprises a first pyranometer pointed upwards to receive incident solar irradiation and a second pyranometer pointed downwards to receive solar radiation reflected by the measurement surface in order to preform simultaneous measurements.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apogee, Barney, and Malek as applied to claims 3 and 8 above, and further in view of Dong et al. (KR20210051626), references to English machine translation, hereinafter “Dong”.
Regarding claim 9, Apogee is silent regarding a counterweight (4) attached to the arm (3).
However, Dong teaches an optical measurement device (abstract) including a counterweight (4) attached to the arm (3) (Fig 1, ref E, paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Apogee with the teaching of Dong by including a counterweight (4) attached to the arm (3) in order to have better balance and leveling.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apogee, Barney, and Malek as applied to claims 3 and 8 above, and further in view of NRG Instructions, Solar | Pile Mounted Albedometer | Kit #18868, [retrieved on July 20, 2026], retrieved from the internet: <URL:https://www.nrgsystems.com/assets/resources/Solar_AlbedometerPileMount18868_Instructions.pdf >, hereinafter “NRG”.
Regarding claim 10, Apogee is silent regarding wherein the arm (3) comprises an aluminum profile.
However, NRG teaches an albedo measuring device (Introduction) including wherein the arm (3) comprises an aluminum profile (page 2, “ Albedometer Leveling Boom aluminum pipe”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Apogee with the teaching of NRG by including wherein the arm (3) comprises an aluminum profile in order to have a lightweight, and inexpensive yet, durable device.
Regarding claim 11, Apogee is silent regarding wherein the arm (3) is sectioned into multiple rods connected by joints.
However, NRG teaches an albedo measuring device (Introduction) including wherein the arm (3) is sectioned into multiple rods connected by joints (as shown on pages 6 and 9”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Apogee with the teaching of NRG by including wherein the arm (3) is sectioned into multiple rods connected by joints in order to have a lightweight, and inexpensive yet, durable device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apogee, Barney, and Malek as applied to claims 3 and 8 above, and further in view of Gostein et al. (US 2024/0402005), hereinafter “Gostein”.
Regarding claim 12, Apogee teaches the arm (3) (supra) but is silent regarding painted black to minimize light reflection.
However, Gostein teaches a pyranometer (paragraph [0019]) including wherein the device is painted black to minimize light reflection (paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Apogee with the teaching of Gostein by including wherein the device is painted black to minimize light reflection in order to avoid reflections, as taught by Gostein, paragraph [0017].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Apogee AL-120 and AL-100 teach leveling plates similar to the claimed device and could be combined with prior art of record to render the claims obvious.
Nichols (US 2025/0085159) teaches a pyranometer leveling device and could be combined with prior art of record to render the claims obvious.
Apogee AL-140 teaches the claimed fastening assemblies in a leveling tray, but the examiner could not find the publication date of the reference.
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 DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights