DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites determining the amount of use of each icon over a predetermined period of time, and ranking the icons based on the determined amount of use.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because, in line 6 of Claim 1, the limitation of “determining an orientation of the photovoltaic panel as a function of the input data, in order to protect elements underneath the photovoltaic panel while preventing damages to occur on the photovoltaic panel, the determined orientation corresponding to an intermediate orientation of the photovoltaic panel between a plurality of possible intermediate orientations, each possible intermediate orientation being such that the angle, called hail impact angle, between the normal to the surface of the photovoltaic panel and the hailstone velocity vector, is strictly comprised between 0 degrees and 90 degrees modulo z, the orientation of the photovoltaic panel corresponding to a hail impact angle of 0 degrees enabling to maximize the protection of elements underneath the photovoltaic panel without preventing damages to occur on the photovoltaic panel, the orientation of the photovoltaic panel corresponding to a hail impact angle of 90 degrees enabling to maximize the prevention of damages on the photovoltaic panel without protecting elements underneath the photovoltaic panel.” recites an abstract idea. This limitation is merely calculating an equation on a computer, and doesn’t actually have any requirement of moving the photovoltaic panels.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional steps other than making the calculations on a computer, which is an abstract idea. The are no additional steps after determining the orientation (performing a mathematical computation).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computation is performed by a general-purpose computer and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to determining an orientation of the photovoltaic panel as a function of the input data is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected since the claims depend on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 12 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, line 5, the limitation of “the mass” lacks antecedent basis.
In line 11, the limitation of “the angle” lacks antecedent basis.
In line 11-12, the limitation of “the normal to the surface” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claims 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, the limitation of “the wind” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected since the claims depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Raghuchandra (US Pub No. 2022/0077813)
Regarding Claim 1, Raghuchandra et al. teaches a method for determining an orientation of a photovoltaic panel to reduce the damage caused by a hail event [0042], the method being computer-implemented [0084, Fig. 9, 0070] and comprising:
- receiving input data relative to characteristics of a hail event, the input data comprising at least the mass of a hailstone and a hailstone velocity vector [0041, the tracking motor 350 moves the collector face 340 to an optimized position that ensures that the expected force imparted by potential impactors 370 falls below the impact threshold for the solar cells 330 (or a safety margin thereof), but otherwise maximizes the amount of sunlight collected by the solar cells 330 operating in a weather event that produces airborne impactors 370, and the tracking motor 350 positions the collector face 340 at an oblique or parallel angle relative to the trajectory 380 so that if the impactor 370 does strike the collector face 340, less kinetic energy is transferred from the impactor 370],
and - determining an orientation of the photovoltaic panel as a function of the input data, in order to protect elements underneath the photovoltaic panel while preventing damages to occur on the photovoltaic panel [0041, 0071],
the determined orientation corresponding to an intermediate orientation of the photovoltaic panel between a plurality of possible intermediate orientations, each possible intermediate orientation being such that the angle, called hail impact angle, between the normal to the surface of the photovoltaic panel and the hailstone velocity vector, is strictly comprised between 0 degrees and 90 degrees modulo z [Fig. 3B-3C, 0039-0041], the orientation of the photovoltaic panel corresponding to a hail impact angle of 0 degrees enabling to maximize the protection of elements underneath the photovoltaic panel without preventing damages to occur on the photovoltaic panel [0068, the tracking system detected the direction of the hail impact, then adjust the orientation of the panels to mitigate the damage to the solar panels], the orientation of the photovoltaic panel corresponding to a hail impact angle of 90 degrees enabling to maximize the prevention of damages on the photovoltaic panel without protecting elements underneath the photovoltaic panel [0039-0041, 0068].
Regarding Claim 2, Raghuchandra et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Raghuchandra et al. teaches wherein the method comprises a phase of sending a command to an actioner of the photovoltaic panel enabling to adapt the orientation of the photovoltaic panel in conformity with the determined orientation [0040-0041, 0068].
Regarding Claim 3, Raghuchandra et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Raghuchandra et al. teaches wherein the determination phase comprises the determination of the orientation of the photovoltaic panel so as to fulfill a kinetic energy criterion, the kinetic energy criterion stating that the kinetic energy received by the photovoltaic panel from a hailstone is below a maximum predetermined kinetic energy, enabling to prevent damages to occur on the photovoltaic panel [0040-0041].
Regarding Claim 12, Raghuchandra et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Raghuchandra et al. teaches wherein the hailstone velocity vector comprises a vertical velocity component and a horizontal velocity component, the horizontal velocity component being approximated as being the velocity of the wind [0041, 0071]
Regarding Claim 14, Raghuchandra et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Raghuchandra et al. teaches a readable information carrier on which a computer program product comprising a readable information carrier having stored thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable onto a data processing unit and causing a method according to claim 1 to be carried out when the computer program is carried out on the data processing unit [0083-0084]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Raghuchandra (US Pub No. 2022/0077813) is the closest prior art.
Raghuchandra et al. teaches limitations of the claims but does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the determination phase comprises the steps of: - calculating the hailstone maximum velocity corresponding to the maximum predetermined kinetic energy,- calculating the hailstone velocity as a function of the input data,- comparing the hailstone velocity to the hailstone maximum velocity, and- determining the orientation of the photovoltaic panel as a function of the input data and of the result of the comparison.” in claim 4, “wherein when the hailstone velocity is above the hailstone maximum velocity, the step of determining the orientation of the photovoltaic panel comprises calculating the minimum allowable hailstone impact angle on the basis of the hailstone maximum velocity and the hailstone velocity, and calculating the orientation of the photovoltaic panel as a function of the minimum allowable hailstone impact angle and of the input data.” in claim 5, “wherein the orientation of the photovoltaic panel is quantified by a tilt angle for the photovoltaic panel and an azimuth angle for the photovoltaic panel enabling to perform dual axis tracking, the step of determining the orientation of the photovoltaic panel comprising fixing one of the two angles and determining the other angle depending on the input data and of the result of the comparison.” in claim 6, the entire limitation of claim 7, “wherein the tilt angle of the photovoltaic panel is set as being equal to the hailstone velocity angle, the hailstone velocity angle being the angle between the hailstone velocity vector and a vertical axis.” in claim 8, the entire limitation of claim 9, “wherein the azimuth angle of the photovoltaic panel is set as being equal to the azimuth of the wind. ” in claim 10, the entire limitation of claim 11, and the entire limitation of claim 13.
These references, nor any other reference or combination of references in the prior art suggest or render obvious the limitations of “wherein the determination phase comprises the steps of: - calculating the hailstone maximum velocity corresponding to the maximum predetermined kinetic energy,- calculating the hailstone velocity as a function of the input data,- comparing the hailstone velocity to the hailstone maximum velocity, and- determining the orientation of the photovoltaic panel as a function of the input data and of the result of the comparison.” in claim 4, “wherein when the hailstone velocity is above the hailstone maximum velocity, the step of determining the orientation of the photovoltaic panel comprises calculating the minimum allowable hailstone impact angle on the basis of the hailstone maximum velocity and the hailstone velocity, and calculating the orientation of the photovoltaic panel as a function of the minimum allowable hailstone impact angle and of the input data.” in claim 5, “wherein the orientation of the photovoltaic panel is quantified by a tilt angle for the photovoltaic panel and an azimuth angle for the photovoltaic panel enabling to perform dual axis tracking, the step of determining the orientation of the photovoltaic panel comprising fixing one of the two angles and determining the other angle depending on the input data and of the result of the comparison.” in claim 6, the entire limitation of claim 7, “wherein the tilt angle of the photovoltaic panel is set as being equal to the hailstone velocity angle, the hailstone velocity angle being the angle between the hailstone velocity vector and a vertical axis.” in claim 8, the entire limitation of claim 9, “wherein the azimuth angle of the photovoltaic panel is set as being equal to the azimuth of the wind. ” in claim 10, the entire limitation of claim 11, and the entire limitation of claim 13.
Therefore; claim 1 is allowed once the limitations of claims 4-11 and 13 are incorporated into claim 1, and the rejections under 35 USC 101 are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728