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 .
This communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed on July 7, 2025, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for transporting solar modules.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 11 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “a base that supports a solar crate during transportation; at least one vehicle receptacle coupled within the base to facilitate a lift and movement of the solar transport; and at least one monitor to providing monitoring functionality to a location remote to the solar crate transport, the at least one monitor comprises a weight to generates load information to track weight measurements of the solar crate, the load information is used to approximate a number within the solar crate transport” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (module, device and sensor in claims 1 and 11) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (module, device and sensor in claims 1 and 11). The module, device and sensor in claims 1 and 11, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the module in claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20; sensor in claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 12, 15-16 and 18; RFID reader and RFID tag in claims 4, 9, 14 and 19; accelerometer and gyroscope in claims 6 and 16; motion detector in claims 7 and 17; cameras in claims 10 and 20, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selig et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240343497 - hereinafter Selig) in view of Schnitz et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20080061963 - hereinafter Schnitz) in view of Numa-Beaujour et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20180065798 - hereinafter Numa) in view of Gordon et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20050241549 - hereinafter Gordon).
Re. claim 1 and 11, Selig teaches:
A solar module crate transport comprising:
a base that supports a solar module crate during transportation; [Selig; ¶8 and ¶25 shows truck with functionality of being coupled to a base to transport the solar modules].
at least one vehicle receptacle coupled within the base to facilitate a lift and movement of the solar module transport; and [Selig; ¶8 and ¶25 shows truck with functionality of being coupled to a base to transport the solar modules].
Selig doesn’t teach, Schnitz teaches:
at least one monitor device to providing monitoring functionality to a location remote to the solar module crate transport, [Schnitz; shows in ¶17 a “central tracking computer” which is a location remote to the solar module crate transport, presented by the citation of “master control unit is attached to an outside surface of the shipping container, and includes a solar panel, a battery, a GPS receiver module and a microcontroller, configured as described above” which is then followed by the statement of “location of the shipping container is periodically sent to the central tracking computer through the Internet and a cellular data network” which shows location is sent to the remote location and the location of the entity is monitored].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Selig by including limitation(s) as taught by Schnitz to include the above features in the invention of Selig. One would be motivated to modify Selig with the teachings of Schnitz since “an active GPS antenna could be used, but because the GPS receiver module and the passive GPS antenna are in the same package and physically close to each other, the passive antenna is adequate, providing lower cost and power benefits”. [Schnitz; ¶53].
Selig doesn’t teach, Numa teaches:
the at least one monitor device comprises a weight sensor to generates load information to track weight measurements of the solar module crate, [Numa; ¶52-¶57 shows weight sensor for generating loading information].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Selig by including limitation(s) as taught by Numa to include the above features in the invention of Selig. One would be motivated to modify Selig with the teachings of Numa since “the solar panels may be integrated in the thickness of the top wall of the container, and/or its side walls”. [Numa; ¶101].
Selig doesn’t teach, Gordon teaches:
the load information is used to approximate a number of […] modules within the solar module crate transport. [Gordon; ¶227 shows identifying the total number of boxes on the pallet].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Gordon in the system of Selig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon in view of Jones et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20180046975 - hereinafter Jones).
Re. claim 2 and 12, Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon teaches solar module crate transport of claim 1.
Selig doesn’t teach, Schnitz teaches:
further comprising: a location sensor positioned on the solar module crate transport to transmit location and time information. [Schnitz; shows in ¶17 a “central tracking computer” which is a location remote to the solar module crate transport, presented by the citation of “master control unit is attached to an outside surface of the shipping container, and includes a solar panel, a battery, a GPS receiver module and a microcontroller, configured as described above” which is then followed by the statement of “location of the shipping container is periodically sent to the central tracking computer through the Internet and a cellular data network” which shows location is sent to the remote location and the location of the entity is monitored].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Selig by including limitation(s) as taught by Schnitz to include the above features in the invention of Selig. One would be motivated to modify Selig with the teachings of Schnitz since “an active GPS antenna could be used, but because the GPS receiver module and the passive GPS antenna are in the same package and physically close to each other, the passive antenna is adequate, providing lower cost and power benefits”. [Schnitz; ¶53].
Selig doesn’t teach, Jones teaches:
supplement the weight measurements. [Jones; ¶51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Jones in the system of Selig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable 3over Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon in view of Jones in view of Sanglier et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200387861 - hereinafter Sanglier).
Re. claim 3 and 13, Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon in view of Jones teaches solar module crate transport of claim 2.
Selig doesn’t teach, Sanglier teaches:
wherein the location sensor transmits the location information with a transport identifier of the solar module crate transport to enable specific geo-tracking of the solar module crate transport. [Sanglier; ¶131-¶132 shows geo-tracking for luggage such as “three unknown bags have been provided with the same location and flight-related information, namely flight number AF438 to Geneva Airport on 28 Apr. 2017. Each scanned bag may be represented by a bag icon 901 which indicates the LPN associated with the bag to enable a user to distinguish between scanned bags and to correctly select a particular bag”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Sanglier in the system of Selig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 4, 9, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon in view of Sanglier.
Re. claim 4 and 14, Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon teaches solar module crate transport of claim 1.
Selig doesn’t teach, Sanglier teaches:
further comprising: an embedded RFID reader that scans an RFID tag on the solar module crate, the embedded RFID reader is triggered to scan the RFID tag in response to a command or in response to a sensed weight change on the solar module crate transport. [Sanglier; ¶37].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Sanglier in the system of Selig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 9 and 19, Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon teaches solar module crate transport of claim 1.
Selig doesn’t teach, Sanglier teaches:
further comprising: an RFID tag that provides an identification number of the solar module crate transport when the RFID tag activated by an RFID reader. [Sanglier; ¶37].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Sanglier in the system of Selig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon in view of Kawaguchi et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200004995 - hereinafter Kawaguchi).
Re. claim 5 and 15, Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon teaches solar module crate transport of claim 1.
Selig doesn’t teach, Kawaguchi teaches:
further comprising: a MEMS sensor that generates shock information associated with movement of the solar module crate transport. [Kawaguchi; ¶299 shows MEMs sensors, that generate shock information, ¶169 shows “the state machine 426 may be configured to include sensor data in a response signal (e.g., a BLE beacon signal) if one or more temperature values included in thermal sensor data exceeds a temperature threshold (e.g., 50° C.) or is less than a lower temperature threshold (e.g., <0° C.). In another example, the state machine 426 may be configured to include sensor data in a response signal (e.g., a BLE and/or Wi-Fi signal) if an acceleration value included in shock sensor data exceeds a shock threshold (e.g., 3 G)”. ¶131 shows “a passive tracking device 108 may include an accelerometer (e.g., a MEMS accelerometer). In these embodiments, an accelerometer may be integrated into the passive tracking devices 108 to enable identifying passive tracking devices that are in motion”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Kawaguchi in the system of Selig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 6 and 16, Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon in view of Kawaguchi teaches solar module crate transport of claim 5.
Selig doesn’t teach, Kawaguchi teaches:
wherein the MEMS sensor is an accelerometer or a gyroscope. [Kawaguchi; ¶131 shows “a passive tracking device 108 may include an accelerometer (e.g., a MEMS accelerometer). In these embodiments, an accelerometer may be integrated into the passive tracking devices 108 to enable identifying passive tracking devices that are in motion”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Kawaguchi in the system of Selig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 7 and 17, Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon teaches solar module crate transport of claim 5.
Selig doesn’t teach, Kawaguchi teaches:
further comprising: a motion detector that allows remote sensing of motion around the solar module crate transport. [Kawaguchi; ¶13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Kawaguchi in the system of Selig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon in view of Popp et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20070044979 - hereinafter Popp).
Re. claim 8 and 18, Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon teaches solar module crate transport of claim 1.
Selig doesn’t teach, Popp teaches:
further comprising: a temperature sensor that allows remote monitoring of temperature around the solar module crate transport. [Popp; ¶2 shows temperature sensor, ¶54 shows temperature sensors for cargo container].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Popp in the system of Selig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon in view of Zhou et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210205997 - hereinafter Zhou).
Re. claim 10 and 20, Selig in view of Schnitz in view of Numa in view of Gordon teaches solar module crate transport of claim 1.
Selig doesn’t teach, Zhou teaches:
further comprising: one or more cameras that provide remote viewing around the solar module crate transport at an installation location at which the solar module crate transport is located. [Zhou; ¶28 states “autonomous ground vehicle 100 has an ability to autonomously drive itself via use of a computer vision system and/or a Lidar system cooperating with a GPS sensor and driving software resident in a drive module for the autonomous ground vehicle 100 to drive itself to the solar tracker and align itself with the solar tracker” and ¶23 shows “autonomous ground vehicle 100 can self-drive itself using a vision system such as a camera based-computer vision system and/or Lidar, sensors, and optionally a remote for assisting in various aspects such as driving”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Zhou in the system of Selig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 5712725587. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights