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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2025 & 03/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claim 1 in line 3 recites the limitation "the". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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 “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]:
Claim 1 in lines 4-5 recites the limitation "determining a reference electrical parameter according to the quantity of the photovoltaic branches and electrical parameters of the photovoltaic branches;" and in lines 8-9 recites the limitation "determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter." It is unclear what the test method is, what the reference electrical parameter is, what the test electrical parameters are, and what sort of test results would be obtained. Limitations with "according to" (without significantly more) make the scope unclear. Note: claim 3 makes it clear that the parameters are electrical currents or voltages but not where or how they are measured.
Claim 5 in lines 1-2 recites the limitation "wherein the characteristic parameter comprises photocurrent and loss current of the photovoltaic branch". It is not clear what the difference between the photocurrent and the loss current is nor how they would be distinguished.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the limitation(s) of a rejected parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim(s) was rejected’:
Claims 2-13 recite the limitation "The method according to claim 1[2][3][4][5][8]" or "The photovoltaic array test system according to claim 12".
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams form MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“determining a reference electrical parameter according to the quantity of the photovoltaic branches and electrical parameters of the photovoltaic branches;”
“if the photovoltaic array is electrically connected to the photovoltaic array test system, obtaining a test electrical parameter of the photovoltaic array;”
“determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
Analysis:
Limitations directed towards determining or calculating values (i.e., determining parameters or determining based on parameters) are limitations directed towards mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Conclusion:
The claim recites limitations directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “mathematical concepts” or of “mental processes”.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“photovoltaic array test system”, “photovoltaic array”
The claim recites the additional limitations of:
“obtaining the quantity of photovoltaic branches connected in a photovoltaic array;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “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,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, examiners should explain in an eligibility rejection why they do not meaningfully limit the claim. For example, an examiner could explain that employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more,”
Analysis:
These additional elements and limitations are not significantly more than:
field of use limitations directed towards at least CPC symbol H02S 50/00: “Monitoring or testing of PV systems, e.g. load balancing or fault identification”, or
generic computing elements for performing the judicial exception(s) such as a ‘photovoltaic array test system’.
necessary extra solution activity (pre-solution data gathering).
Conclusion:
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Explanation:
The additional elements as recited in step 2A Prong Two (above) are necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s). A judicial exception involving determinations based numerical values necessarily requires obtaining those values, but the instant application does not disclose elements beyond that which would necessarily be implied by the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“wherein the step of if the photovoltaic array is electrically connected to the photovoltaic array test system, obtaining a test electrical parameter of the photovoltaic array comprises:”
“if the photovoltaic array is in a state of supplying power to the photovoltaic array test system, monitoring the test electrical parameter inputted by the photovoltaic array to the photovoltaic array test system.”
Explanation:
This limitation is further directed towards the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of either mental processes or mathematical concepts. Determinations based on evaluating an ‘if condition’ and obtaining parameters based thereon are within the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of at least mental processes.
Limitations directed towards “monitoring” (at least under the broadest BRI) are within the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of either ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 2 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 2 does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein the reference electrical parameter comprises first reference current;”
“the electrical parameters of the photovoltaic branches comprise first reference current of the photovoltaic branches;”
“and the test electrical parameter comprises first test current;”
“the determining a reference electrical parameter according to the quantity of the photovoltaic branches and electrical parameters of the photovoltaic branches comprises:”
“determining reference current of a single photovoltaic branch of the photovoltaic array according to a characteristic parameter of the single photovoltaic branch;”
“and determining first reference current of the photovoltaic array according to the quantity of the photovoltaic branches and the reference current of the photovoltaic branches;”
“and the determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter comprises:”
“comparing the first test current with the first reference current;”
“and if a difference value between the first test current and the first reference current is greater than a first current threshold, determining that the photovoltaic array is abnormal.”
Explanation:
These limitations are further directed towards determinations based on ‘if’ analysis or on comparing or determinations based on reference values.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 3 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 3 does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“determining first initial current of the single photovoltaic branch according to the characteristic parameter of the photovoltaic branch in a plurality of working states;”
“and determining the reference current of the photovoltaic branch according to the first initial current in the plurality of working states.”
Explanation:
These limitations are further directed towards comparing or determinations based on reference values.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 4 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 4 does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“wherein the characteristic parameter comprises photocurrent and loss current of the photovoltaic branch;”
“and the determining first initial current of the single photovoltaic branch according to the characteristic parameter of the photovoltaic branch comprises:”
“and determining the first initial current of the photovoltaic branch according to the photocurrent and the loss current.”
Explanation:
These limitations are further directed towards comparing or determinations based on reference values.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 5 does not recite additional elements.
Claim 5 recites the additional limitations of:
“acquiring the photocurrent generated by the single photovoltaic branch;”
“acquiring the loss current of the single photovoltaic branch;”
Explanation:
These limitations are directed towards the necessary extra solution activity (pre solution data gathering) of acquiring/measuring currents which would be necessary for the recited judicial exceptions.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 5 does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“screening out the current corresponding to the power of the photovoltaic branch being greater than a set power from the first initial current in the plurality of working states as the reference current of the photovoltaic branch.”
Explanation:
These limitations are further directed towards comparing or determinations based on reference values.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 6 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 6 does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 7 additionally recites:
“wherein the reference electrical parameter comprises first reference voltage, and the test electrical parameter comprises first test voltage;”
“and the determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter comprises:”
“comparing the first test voltage with the first reference voltage, and if a difference value between the first test voltage and the first reference voltage is greater than a first voltage threshold, determining that the photovoltaic array is abnormal.”
Explanation:
These limitations are further directed towards comparing or determinations based on reference values.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 7 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 7 does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“and the step of if the photovoltaic array is electrically connected to the photovoltaic array test system, obtaining a test electrical parameter of the photovoltaic array comprises:”
“if the power module of the photovoltaic array test system is in a state of supplying power to the photovoltaic array, obtaining the test electrical parameter of the photovoltaic array.”
Explanation:
These limitations are further directed towards comparing or determinations based on reference values.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 8 recites the additional element:
“power module”
Claim 8 recites the additional limitation of:
“wherein the photovoltaic array test system comprises: a power module;”
Explanation:
At least under the BRI a ‘power module’ is not significantly more than a field of art limitation corresponding to at least the CPC symbol H02S 50/00: “Monitoring or testing of PV systems, e.g. load balancing or fault identification”; all photovoltaic (PV) systems have something which could be called a ‘power module’.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 8 does not recite additional elements beyond the field of art element (“power module”) listed in step 2A Prong Two.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
“wherein the reference electrical parameter comprises second reference current;”
“the electrical parameters of the photovoltaic branches comprise second reference current of the photovoltaic branches;”
“and the test electrical parameter comprises second test current;”
“the determining a reference electrical parameter according to the quantity of the photovoltaic branches and electrical parameters of the photovoltaic branches comprises:”
“determining the second reference current of the photovoltaic branch according to the load current of all the load elements;”
“and determining the second reference current of the photovoltaic array according to the quantity of the photovoltaic branches and the second reference current of the photovoltaic branches;”
“and the determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter comprises:”
“comparing the second test current with the second reference current, and if a difference value between the second test current and the second reference current is greater than a second current threshold, determining that the photovoltaic array is abnormal.”
Explanation:
These limitations are further directed towards comparing or determinations based on reference values.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 9 does not recite additional elements.
Claim 9 recites the additional limitation of:
“acquiring the load current of all load elements in the single photovoltaic branch;”
Explanation:
Acquiring current values is necessary extra solution (pre solution data gathering) necessary for determinations based on electric currents such as are inherently part of the field of use corresponding to at least CPC symbol H02S 50/00: “Monitoring or testing of PV systems, e.g. load balancing or fault identification”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 9 does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein the reference electrical parameter comprises second reference voltage, and the test electrical parameter comprises second test voltage;”
“and the determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter comprises:”
“comparing the second test voltage with the second reference voltage, and if a difference value between the second test voltage and the second reference voltage is greater than a second voltage threshold, determining that the photovoltaic array is abnormal.”
Explanation:
These limitations are further directed towards comparing or determinations based on reference values.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 10 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 10 does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 11 additionally recites:
“comparing the quantity of the connected photovoltaic branches with the total quantity of photovoltaic branches contained in the photovoltaic array to determine whether the quantity of the connected photovoltaic branches is smaller than the total quantity of photovoltaic branches contained in the photovoltaic array;”
“and if the quantity of the connected photovoltaic branches is smaller than the total quantity of photovoltaic branches contained in the photovoltaic array, determining that there is an abnormal connection in the photovoltaic array.”
Explanation:
These limitations are further directed towards comparing or determinations based on reference values.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 11 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 11 does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 12:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a test system which is a device and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 12 additionally recites:
“comprising a photovoltaic energy storage inverter, wherein the photovoltaic energy storage inverter comprises: an input interface, a converter and a central controller;”
“the input interface is configured to connect the photovoltaic array;”
“the converter is configured to test an electrical parameter of the photovoltaic array;”
Explanation:
At least under the BRI these elements are not significantly more than generic computer elements or field of art limitations corresponding to at least CPC symbol H02S 50/00: “Monitoring or testing of PV systems, e.g. load balancing or fault identification”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of:
“photovoltaic energy storage inverter”, “input interface”, “converter”, “central controller”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(e):
“The analysis of whether the claim includes other meaningful limitations may be relevant for both eligibility analysis Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B.
The claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The phrase "meaningful limitations" has been used by the courts even before Alice and Mayo in various contexts to describe additional elements that provide an inventive concept to the claim as a whole. The considerations described in MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(d) are meaningful limitations when they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, or when they integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I):
“In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Analysis:
These elements at least under the BRI are not significantly more than field of art limitations or are generic computing elements for performing the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
Claim 13:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a test system which is a device and therefore within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A - Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 12 and thereby from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A - Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of:
“power module”
Claim 13 recites the additional limitations of:
“further comprising: a power module connected to the photovoltaic energy storage inverter;”
“wherein the power module is configured to supply power to the photovoltaic array.”
Explanation:
At least under the BRI these elements are not significantly more than generic computer elements or field of art limitations corresponding to at least CPC symbol H02S 50/00: “Monitoring or testing of PV systems, e.g. load balancing or fault identification”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of:
“power module”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(e):
“The analysis of whether the claim includes other meaningful limitations may be relevant for both eligibility analysis Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B.
The claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The phrase "meaningful limitations" has been used by the courts even before Alice and Mayo in various contexts to describe additional elements that provide an inventive concept to the claim as a whole. The considerations described in MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(d) are meaningful limitations when they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, or when they integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I):
“In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Analysis:
These elements at least under the BRI are not significantly more than field of art limitations or are generic computing elements for performing the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7256566 B2 (Bhavaraju) in view of US 8461718 B2 (Bundschuh).
Regarding claim 1, Bhavaraju teaches a photovoltaic array test method, applied to a photovoltaic array test system, the photovoltaic array test method comprising: obtaining the quantity of photovoltaic branches (Fig. 1-106: “photovoltaic cells 106 in series ("a string")”, column 5 lines 8-11: “Other components in the system 100 comprise a combiner 110 to electrically couple individual photovoltaic cells 106 in series ("a string") and/or in parallel so as to provide an appropriate DC voltage level to the inverter 102.”, branches/(string in parallel or series)) connected in a photovoltaic array (Fig. 1-104: “photovoltaic array”, column 4 lines 54-57: “An inverter 102 contains circuitry and/or logic appropriate to extract DC power from a photovoltaic array 104 comprising one or more photovoltaic cells 106 (four cells being shown in FIG. 1 as an example)”); determining a reference electrical parameter according to the quantity of the photovoltaic branches and electrical parameters of the photovoltaic branches (Fig. 1-116: “current sensor” or Fig. 1-118: “voltage sensor”), these electrical parameters would be different depending on condition and number of the cells or strings); if the photovoltaic array is electrically connected to the photovoltaic array test system, obtaining a test electrical parameter of the photovoltaic array (Fig. 1-116: “current sensor” or Fig. 1-118: “voltage sensor”, these parameters are taken so that they can be compared to either expected parameters or to parameters from other systems or to previously taken parameters i.e. testing);
Bhavaraju does not as explicitly teach and determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter.
Bundschuh teaches and determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter (Fig. 5B-554: “transmit diagnostics results”, column 8 lines 48-58: “FIG. 5B illustrates a procedure for use in a PV system with automatic diagnostic capabilities. In step 552, after an alert condition is initiated, diagnostic procedures are performed automatically by the PV system or by a remote server or operator. Certain useful diagnostics procedures are discussed elsewhere herein. In step 554, results of the diagnostics procedures are preferably transmitted to a remote server or operator. In step 556, the remote server or operator determines an appropriate responsive action. In step 558, a maintenance visit is scheduled. In step 562 maintenance personnel correct the problem.”, test result/(“diagnostics results”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Bhavaraju with the teachings of Bundschuh. One would have added to the “Method And Apparatus For Determining A Maximum Power Point Of Photovoltaic Cells” of Bhavaraju the “Photovoltaic Array Systems, Methods, And Devices With Bidirectional Converter” and in particular the diagnostics of Bundschuh. The combination would enable diagnostics of photovoltaic branches and enable a more cost effective remote analysis of the diagnostics (see Bundschuh column 8 line 58-67: “The procedure illustrated in FIG. 5B can greatly reduce maintenance costs because information about the problem and potential causes will be available before an on-site visit. This information increases the likelihood that the right personnel and equipment are dispatched. The additional information can also be utilized by maintenance to better understand the severity of the problem. In some case it may be more financially attractive to delay dispatching maintenance and combine the site visit with normally schedule maintenance.”)
Regarding claim 2, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the method according to claim 1,
Bhavaraju further teaches wherein the step of if the photovoltaic array is electrically connected to the photovoltaic array test system, obtaining a test electrical parameter of the photovoltaic array comprises: if the photovoltaic array is in a state of supplying power to the photovoltaic array test system, monitoring the test electrical parameter inputted by the photovoltaic array to the photovoltaic array test system (Fig. 1-116: “current sensor” or Fig. 1-118: “voltage sensor”), system monitors electrical parameters while the system is supplying power).
Regarding claim 3, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the method according to claim 2,
Bhavaraju further teaches wherein the reference electrical parameter comprises first reference current (Fig. 1-116: “current sensor”, Fig. 1-120: “machine-readable storage medium”, column 5 lines 46-52: “In an embodiment, the controller 112 is coupled to a machine-readable storage medium 120 that has software 122 or other machine-readable instructions stored thereon. The controller 112 can operate in conjunction with the software 122 to generate the I-V characteristics as values in a data structure, a graph, variables having values, or other type of data representation.”, system can save I-V characteristic data and use that data as a reference later); the electrical parameters of the photovoltaic branches comprise first reference current of the photovoltaic branches(Fig. 1-116: “current sensor”); and the test electrical parameter comprises first test current(Fig. 1-116: “current sensor”, system compares test current/(Fig. 1-116)); the determining a reference electrical parameter according to the quantity of the photovoltaic branches and electrical parameters of the photovoltaic branches comprises: determining reference current of a single photovoltaic branch of the photovoltaic array according to a characteristic parameter of the single photovoltaic branch (column 5 lines 37-40: “it is appreciated that individual current and voltage sensors may be provided to measure or otherwise determine separate currents and voltages from individual or groups of photovoltaic cells 106.”, controller and combiner can determine current through a single branch/(“groups of photovoltaic cells 106”)); and determining first reference current of the photovoltaic array according to the quantity of the photovoltaic branches and the reference current of the photovoltaic branches (Fig. 1-110: “combiner”, depending on the configuration of the combiner the reference current at 116 would be different); and the determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter comprises: comparing the first test current with the first reference current (Fig. 2-200: “first graph” & Fig. 2-214: “second graph”, system is comparing test current against a reference current); and if a difference value between the first test current and the first reference current is greater than a first current threshold, determining that the photovoltaic array is abnormal (Fig. 2- 216: “max power value”, column 7 lines 24-30: “A maximum calculated power value at 216 corresponds to the MPP … the controller 112 determines the MPP by reviewing all of the calculated power values obtained by the software, and selects the highest calculated power value as the MPP.”, normal operation is at ‘max power value’ and would be abnormal when not at max power).
Regarding claim 4, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the method according to claim 3,
Bhavaraju further teaches wherein the determining reference current of a single photovoltaic branch of the photovoltaic array according to an electrical parameter of the single photovoltaic branch comprises: determining first initial current of the single photovoltaic branch according to the characteristic parameter of the photovoltaic branch in a plurality of working states (Fig. 2-200 & Fig. 2-214, each graph of current vs voltage corresponds to a different working state set by the combiner); and determining the reference current of the photovoltaic branch according to the first initial current in the plurality of working states (Fig. 1-110: Combiner, each configuration of the combiner is a different working state and the system references them by comparing current vs voltage for each).
Regarding claim 5, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the method according to claim 4,
Bhavaraju further teaches wherein the characteristic parameter comprises photocurrent and loss current of the photovoltaic branch (Fig. 1-116: “current sensor”, current sensor would be able to sense the currents from the photovoltaic branches under different configurations of the combiner); and the determining first initial current of the single photovoltaic branch according to the characteristic parameter of the photovoltaic branch comprises: acquiring the photocurrent generated by the single photovoltaic branch (Fig. 1-110: “Combiner”, combiner can select a single photovoltaic branch and the current sensor then senses a corresponding photocurrent); acquiring the loss current of the single photovoltaic branch (Fig. 1-116: “current sensor”,); and determining the first initial current of the photovoltaic branch according to the photocurrent and the loss current (Fig. 1-116: “current sensor”, current sensor senses current dependent on the configuration of the combiner).
Regarding claim 6, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the method according to claim 5,
Bhavaraju further teaches wherein the determining the reference current of the photovoltaic branch according to the first initial current in the plurality of working states comprises: screening out the current corresponding to the power of the photovoltaic branch being greater than a set power from the first initial current in the plurality of working states as the reference current of the photovoltaic branch(Fig. 1-110: “combiner”, combiner can choose photovoltaic branches and the current sensor then senses that corresponding photocurrent and can compare it to a reference).
Regarding claim 7, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the method according to claim 2,
Bhavaraju further teaches wherein the reference electrical parameter comprises first reference voltage, and the test electrical parameter comprises first test voltage (Fig. 1-118: “voltage sensor”, different combinations in the combiner result in different voltages to be referenced); and the determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter comprises: comparing the first test voltage with the first reference voltage, and if a difference value between the first test voltage and the first reference voltage is greater than a first voltage threshold, determining that the photovoltaic array is abnormal (Fig. 2- 216: “max power value”, column 7 lines 24-30: “A maximum calculated power value at 216 corresponds to the MPP … the controller 112 determines the MPP by reviewing all of the calculated power values obtained by the software, and selects the highest calculated power value as the MPP.”, normal operation is at ‘max power value’ and would be abnormal when not at max power).
Regarding claim 8, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the method according to claim 1,
Bundschuh further teaches wherein the photovoltaic array test system comprises: a power module (Fig. 13A:”Power Supply”); and the step of if the photovoltaic array is electrically connected to the photovoltaic array test system (Fig. 5B-552: “diagnostics”, test system/(“diagnostics”)), obtaining a test electrical parameter of the photovoltaic array comprises: if the power module of the photovoltaic array test system is in a state of supplying power to the photovoltaic array, obtaining the test electrical parameter of the photovoltaic array (Fig. 1-130: “bidirectional photovoltaic converter”, column 7 lines 36-45: “PV converter 130 can alternatively be operated in reverse, so that PV converter 130 draws power from an AC power distribution system, converts the AC power to DC, and delivers a DC potential to PV array 12. PV converter 130 is preferably configured to be able to provide either a forward potential--that is, a DC voltage tending to induce current in the normal direction of current flow of the PV modules, or a reverse potential, tending to induce a current in the opposite direction of normal current through the PV modules”).
Regarding claim 9, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the method according to claim 8,
Bhavaraju further teaches wherein the reference electrical parameter comprises second reference current (Fig. 1-120: “machine-readable storage medium”, column 5 lines 46-52: “In an embodiment, the controller 112 is coupled to a machine-readable storage medium 120 that has software 122 or other machine-readable instructions stored thereon. The controller 112 can operate in conjunction with the software 122 to generate the I-V characteristics as values in a data structure, a graph, variables having values, or other type of data representation.”, system can save I-V characteristic data and use that data as a reference later); the electrical parameters of the photovoltaic branches comprise second reference current of the photovoltaic branches (Fig. 1-116: “current sensor”, Fig. 1-120: “machine-readable storage medium”, sensors connected to a storage medium means it has reference values); and the test electrical parameter comprises second test current(Fig. 1-116: “current sensor”); the determining a reference electrical parameter according to the quantity of the photovoltaic branches and electrical parameters of the photovoltaic branches comprises: acquiring the load current of all load elements in the single photovoltaic branch (Fig. 1-106: “photovoltaic cells 106 in series ("a string")”, column 5 lines 8-13: “Other components in the system 100 comprise a combiner 110 to electrically couple individual photovoltaic cells 106 in series ("a string") and/or in parallel so as to provide an appropriate DC voltage level to the inverter 102. A controller 112 is coupled to the inverter 102 to control operation of the inverter 102.”, system can be configured to look at current and voltage data for load elements in a single voltaic branch); determining the second reference current of the photovoltaic branch according to the load current of all the load elements(column 5 lines 37-40: “it is appreciated that individual current and voltage sensors may be provided to measure or otherwise determine separate currents and voltages from individual or groups of photovoltaic cells 106.”, system can compare single or groups of elements against other combinations); and determining the second reference current of the photovoltaic array according to the quantity of the photovoltaic branches and the second reference current of the photovoltaic branches (Fig. 1-116: “current sensor”, & Fig. 1-110: “combiner”, system can take current measurements for different branches/combinations); and the determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter comprises: comparing the second test current with the second reference current (Fig. 2-200 & Fig. 2-214, system can compare test parameters including current against other configurations or times), and if a difference value between the second test current and the second reference current is greater than a second current threshold, determining that the photovoltaic array is abnormal (Fig. 2-200 & Fig. 2-214 & Fig. 2-216: “power value at 216 corresponds to the MPP”, column 6 lines 5-9: “Once the MPP is determined from the tester unit, the installer or user can make the appropriate adjustments to the controller 112 or other components of the system 100 to ensure that the system 100 operates at or near the MPP.”, system can perform tests and if the difference between currents is greater than a threshold it can determine that the system is abnormal/(need to make the appropriate adjustments)).
Regarding claim 10, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the method according to claim 8,
Bhavaraju further teaches wherein the reference electrical parameter comprises second reference voltage(Fig. 2: “array current” vs “array voltage”, system can compare voltages), and the test electrical parameter comprises second test voltage (Fig. 1-118: “voltage sensor”); and the determining a test result of the photovoltaic array according to the test electrical parameter and the reference electrical parameter comprises: comparing the second test voltage with the second reference voltage, and if a difference value between the second test voltage and the second reference voltage is greater than a second voltage threshold, determining that the photovoltaic array is abnormal (Fig. 2-216: “power value at 216 corresponds to the MPP”, MPP is normal and if the system is not at 216 it can compare/test and then make adjustments to return to the normal).
Regarding claim 11, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the method according to claim 1,
Bhavaraju further teaches further comprising: comparing the quantity of the connected photovoltaic branches with the total quantity of photovoltaic branches contained in the photovoltaic array to determine whether the quantity of the connected photovoltaic branches is smaller than the total quantity of photovoltaic branches contained in the photovoltaic array (Fig. 1-110: “Combiner”, system can collect compare different combinations of photovoltaic elements PV and at different times); and if the quantity of the connected photovoltaic branches is smaller than the total quantity of photovoltaic branches contained in the photovoltaic array, determining that there is an abnormal connection in the photovoltaic array (Fig. 2-216, system determines what the connections are and changes them to correct abnormal (i.e. not Max Power Point) in order to produce power at the MPP).
Regarding claim 12, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the … and the photovoltaic energy storage inverter executes steps of the method according to claim 1.
Bhavaraju further teaches a photovoltaic array test system (Fig. 1-100: “system”, column 4 lines 52-56: “FIG. 1 shows an embodiment of a system 100 wherein the MPP determination techniques described herein may be implemented. An inverter 102 contains circuitry and/or logic appropriate to extract DC power from a photovoltaic array 104 comprising one or more photovoltaic cells 106”, test/(“MPP determination”)), comprising a photovoltaic energy storage inverter (Fig. 1-102: “inverter”), wherein the photovoltaic energy storage inverter comprises: an input interface (Fig. 2-112: “controller”, column 10 lines 35-40: “a technique can be provided wherein the software 122 graphically renders the I-V characteristic curve and/or the power curve (such as depicted by the graphs 200 and 214 in FIG. 2) on a display screen. By visually inspecting these rendered graphs, the installer or user can calculate or otherwise determine the MPP.”, controller with display requires input interface), a converter (application is directed towards supplying electrical power based on different supplies and so must have a converter) and a central controller (Fig. 1-112: “controller”); the input interface is configured to connect the photovoltaic array (Fig. 1-106: “one or more photovoltaic cells”, Fig. 1-110: “combiner”, combiner connects the photovoltaic array); the converter (system connects voltage generating elements) is configured to test an electrical parameter of the photovoltaic array (Fig. 1-116 & Fig. 1-118: electrical parameters, Fig. 2-200 & Fig. 2-214: testing);
Regarding claim 13, Bhavaraju in view of Bundschuh teaches the photovoltaic array test system according to claim 12,
Bundschuh further teaches further comprising: a power module (Fig. 13A:”Power Supply”) connected to the photovoltaic energy storage inverter (Fig. 13A: “inverter”); wherein the power module is configured to supply power to the photovoltaic array (Fig. 1-130: “bidirectional photovoltaic converter”, column 7 lines 36-45: “PV converter 130 can alternatively be operated in reverse, so that PV converter 130 draws power from an AC power distribution system, converts the AC power to DC, and delivers a DC potential to PV array 12. PV converter 130 is preferably configured to be able to provide either a forward potential--that is, a DC voltage tending to induce current in the normal direction of current flow of the PV modules, or a reverse potential, tending to induce a current in the opposite direction of normal current through the PV modules”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20110032099 A1 "Method For Recognizing Theft Of A PV Module And A Failure Of A Bypass Diode Of A PV Module, Corresponding PV Sub-Generator Junction Box, PV Inverter, And Corresponding PV System" (Giesler) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Abstract: "a test voltage that is negative relative to the field voltage is connected to the at least one PV string to adjust a test current through the bypass diodes. A theft message is automatically output when at least one of the test current and the test voltage significantly change.".
US 12424974 B2 "Detection Device For Photovoltaic Assembly" (Luo) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 through Fig. 3.
US 10284139 B2 "Soiling Measurement System For Photovoltaic Arrays" (Gostein) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (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 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights