DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-23 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on April 30, 2025.
Examiner’s Amendment entered to address non-compliant preliminary amendment of Applicant, filed March 4, 2022.
Objection to the Drawings for missing element labels and for non-compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) and 37 CFR 1.121.
Rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Rejection of claims 1, 5-9, 14, 16, and 20-23 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas.
Rejection of claims 3-4, 13, and 18-19 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas and Zipp.
Rejection of claims 10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas and Wacenske.
Rejection of claims 11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas and Arau.
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 .
Examiner’s Amendment
On June 13, 2025, Examiner and Applicant’s Representative Michael North conducted an Examiner-initiated telephonic interview to discuss Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment, filed March 4, 2022. Examiner indicated that the amendment was non-compliant, but it was clear what was intended by the Applicant. Examiner offered to prepare an Examiner’s Amendment to place the claims in the condition that was intended by the Preliminary Amendment. Accordingly, the following amendments are considered as the most current version of the claims and thereby supersede any previous claims. Thus, this Office Action addresses the claims, amended as follows:
1. (Currently Amended) Computer-implemented method for determining a topology of a defined bounded surface for dewatering said surface using at least one specified dewatering point , so that the surface has a monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to a collision point, wherein the topology is determined by dividing the surface into individual surface elements each having at least one plane and, starting from the dewatering point, successively determining in every plane for each surface element a slope in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction in order to form the surface with the monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to the collision point, wherein a throat slope is determined for at least one surface element directly adjacent to the dewatering point in that the respective surface element is divided into at least two planes and the associated surface normals intersect.
2. (Canceled)
3. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least two planes of a surface element having at least one of a throat slope implement a recess in the diagonal direction along the surface element or having a ridge slope implement a rise in the diagonal direction along the surface element.
4. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein a magnitude and/or direction of the slope of the at least two planes of a surface element is determined as a function of the slope of the at least two planes of the surface elements adjacent in a diagonal direction and/or in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction.
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein a throat slope is determined for a surface element directly adjacent in a diagonal direction to a surface element having a throat slope.
6. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a throat slope, in that a slope of a plane of the surface element is determined as monotonically increasing and/or decreasing in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction.
7. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a slope.
8. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the slope is determined as a throat slope for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a slope, wherein the surface element having the slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction comprises at least one collision point and is determined as a throat slope.
9. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the slope of a plane of a surface element having a slope in the direction of at least one collision point is determined as a slope offset from the collision point by 900.
10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein for a plane of a surface element adjacent to a surface element having a slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the slopes are each aligned toward each other, a flat slope is determined, wherein the slope of the plane is zero, wherein the magnitude of the slope is equal to the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude.
11. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein a ridge slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a throat slope, and adjacent in the diagonal direction to a surface element having a slope, wherein the at least two planes of the surface element intersect and/or are inclined in the opposite direction of the slope of the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction.
12. (Canceled)
13. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein for a surface element in which two slopes are perpendicular to each other in different directions, a ridge slope is determined.
14. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction and/or in a diagonal direction to at least two surface elements having a throat slope directly adjacent to each other in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of a point in each case, a slope is determined, wherein the surface normal of the surface element is parallel to the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope.
15. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein for a surface element present between two surface elements each having a throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of a point in each case, a flat slope is determined, wherein the magnitude of the slope is determined to be the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude.
16. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the diagonal direction to a surface element having a throat slope and/or adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a flat slope, wherein the surface normal of the surface element is inclined in the same direction as the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope.
17. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein for a surface element adjacent to a surface element having a throat slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, one ridge slope each is determined, wherein the at least two planes of the surface element intersect.
18. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein for a surface element directly adjacent to at least three surface elements having a throat slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, a ridge slope is determined, wherein the surface normal of the surface elements intersect with the throat slope, wherein the surface normal of the surface element having the ridge slope does not intersect the surface normal of the surface elements having the throat slope.
19. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in a diagonal direction to a surface element having a throat slope, a slope is determined, wherein the surface element having the throat slope comprises at least one collision point in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of the collision point and the slope is monotonically increasing or decreasing along the collision point.
20. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the surface is a roof surface.
21. (Currently Amended) A configuration plan saved on a data storage medium for a surface for depicting slopes determined for individual surface elements as instructions for creating a structure of a topology for dewatering a defined bounded surface according to the determined slopes, wherein the configuration plan comprises at least one dimension and a geometric shape for the individual surface elements, respectively, in order to configure the surface by a plurality of plates having the dimension and geometric shape, wherein the configuration plan is generated by means of an automated method according to one of claims 1 , wherein the individual surface elements comprise at least one plane with the slope being determined for the surface element, respectively, and wherein the surface elements form the surface with the monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to the collision point , wherein at least one surface element directly adjacent to the dewatering point has a throat slope in that the respective surface element is divided into at least two planes and the associated surface normals intersect.
22. (Currently Amended) A structure of a topology for dewatering a defined bounded surface, particularly a roof and/or parking deck, wherein said structure is built of individual plates, the dimensions and geometric shape thereof being adapted to individual surface elements according to a configuration plan according to claim 21, wherein the individual plates comprise at least one plane with the slope being determined for the plate, respectively, and wherein the plates form a surface with a monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to the collision point , wherein at least one plate directly adjacent to the dewatering point has a throat slope in that the respective plate is divided into at least two planes and the associated surface normals intersect.
23. (Currently Amended) . A software comprising instructions, which, when being executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one dewatering point and/or a layout plan is determined as the input value.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 1, 2022 (3 IDS’s) and April 30, 2025 do not include English translations for several references. Accordingly, only the references that are in English or are provided with English translations are being considered by the examiner. References struck through in the IDS’s are not being considered.
The IDS’s have been placed in the application file, but the struck-through references referred to therein have not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 3b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “15” has been used to designate all “intermediate steps,” even when the steps are for different examples (e.g., intermediate step of FIG. 8 and the three intermediate steps of FIG. 9 are all labeled with element “15,” “initial conditions” labeled with element “4,” end conditions labeled with element “5”). Additionally, several of the figures include the same reference number for clearly different elements, such as the use of descriptor “6” to refer to any “slope element,” even if different elements (e.g., Fig. 6, right illustration; Fig. 8, center and right illustration; Fig. 9, left, left-center, and right illustration). Similar issues are present for “flat element,” “throat element,” and “ridge element,” “collision point,” “throat point,” and “dewatering point.” Additionally, description of several of the Figures includes reference to “surface element 2,” which is not illustrated in Figs. 4-6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 3-11, and 13-23 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "at least one plane” and “at least two planes.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, claim 1 recites “determining for every plane,” which is indefinite the metes and bounds of “every plane,” which could be an infinite number of planes, is not clear.
The remainder of the claims include limitations with insufficient antecedent basis. For the following terms in claim 1, one or more of the listed claims further includes the same recitation:
“a throat slope”
“a slope”
“a surface element”
“a first direction”
“a second direction”
“at least one collision point”
Claim 21 recites “one of claims 1,” which is indefinite because the claim set includes only one claim 1.
Because of the extensive antecedent basis issues, the claims are being interpreted as best understood and in light of the specification. However, the claims are generally indefinite and require amendments to remedy the lack of clarity.
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, 3-11, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are more than a judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
Computer-implemented method
for determining a topology of a defined bounded surface for dewatering said surface using at least one specified dewatering point , so that the surface has a monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to a collision point, wherein the topology is determined by
dividing the surface into individual surface elements each having at least one plane and,
starting from the dewatering point, successively determining in every plane for each surface element a slope in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction in order to form the surface with the monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to the collision point,
wherein a throat slope is determined for at least one surface element directly adjacent to the dewatering point in that the respective surface element is divided into at least two planes and the associated surface normals intersect.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Determining a topology is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind with pencil and paper and/or with the aid of a generic computer (e.g., using a CAD program to construct the topology). See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Dividing a surface into separate elements is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind with pencil and paper and/or with the aid of a generic computer. For example, a human can review an image of a surface and select one or more sections of the surface as elements of the surface. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concepts
Determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Concept
Determining a throat slope is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. Additionally, selecting which surface element to perform the calculations on is a mental step that can be performed by a human. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
Computer-implemented method
for determining a topology of a defined bounded surface for dewatering said surface using at least one specified dewatering point , so that the surface has a monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to a collision point, wherein the topology is determined by
dividing the surface into individual surface elements each having at least one plane and,
starting from the dewatering point, successively determining in every plane for each surface element a slope in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction in order to form the surface with the monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to the collision point,
wherein a throat slope is determined for at least one surface element directly adjacent to the dewatering point in that the respective surface element is divided into at least two planes and the associated surface normals intersect.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), e.g..
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The only additional element that is not an abstract idea is recitation of a generic computer, which courts have found to be insignificantly more that the recited judicial exception. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein the at least two planes of a surface element having at least one of a throat slope implement a recess in the diagonal direction along the surface element or having a ridge slope implement a rise in the diagonal direction along the surface element. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. The claim does not include any additional elements and therefore does not add significantly more to the claimed abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein a magnitude and/or direction of the slope of the at least two planes of a surface element is determined as a function of the slope of the at least two planes of the surface elements adjacent in a diagonal direction and/or in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. Determining a magnitude or direction of a slope is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations, which can be trivial enough to be performed by a human using observation and/or pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein a throat slope is determined for a surface element directly adjacent in a diagonal direction to a surface element having a throat slope. Determining a throat slope is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. Additionally, selecting which surface element to perform the calculations on is a mental step that can be performed by a human. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a throat slope, in that a slope of a plane of the surface element is determined as monotonically increasing and/or decreasing in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. The claim merely specifies which surface element is utilized to perform the determining step of claim 1. Determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a slope. The claim merely specifies which surface element is utilized to perform the determining step of claim 1. Determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites wherein the slope is determined as a throat slope for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a slope, wherein the surface element having the slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction comprises at least one collision point and is determined as a throat slope. The claim categorizes the slope as a particular type of slope, which is a mental process that can be performed by human and requires observation and evaluation to determine if a slope conforms to the requirements of a throat slope. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. According, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites wherein the slope of a plane of a surface element having a slope in the direction of at least one collision point is determined as a slope offset from the collision point by 900. Determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites wherein for a plane of a surface element adjacent to a surface element having a slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the slopes are each aligned toward each other, a flat slope is determined, wherein the slope of the plane is zero, wherein the magnitude of the slope is equal to the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. The claim does not include any additional elements and therefore does not add significantly more to the claimed abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites wherein a ridge slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a throat slope, and adjacent in the diagonal direction to a surface element having a slope, wherein the at least two planes of the surface element intersect and/or are inclined in the opposite direction of the slope of the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. The claim does not include any additional elements and therefore does not add significantly more to the claimed abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 11 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites wherein for a surface element in which two slopes are perpendicular to each other in different directions, a ridge slope is determined. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction and/or in a diagonal direction to at least two surface elements having a throat slope directly adjacent to each other in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of a point in each case, a slope is determined, wherein the surface normal of the surface element is parallel to the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites wherein for a surface element present between two surface elements each having a throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of a point in each case, a flat slope is determined, wherein the magnitude of the slope is determined to be the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the diagonal direction to a surface element having a throat slope and/or adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a flat slope, wherein the surface normal of the surface element is inclined in the same direction as the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites wherein for a surface element adjacent to a surface element having a throat slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, one ridge slope each is determined, wherein the at least two planes of the surface element intersect. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites wherein for a surface element directly adjacent to at least three surface elements having a throat slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, a ridge slope is determined, wherein the surface normal of the surface elements intersect with the throat slope, wherein the surface normal of the surface element having the ridge slope does not intersect the surface normal of the surface elements having the throat slope. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in a diagonal direction to a surface element having a throat slope, a slope is determined, wherein the surface element having the throat slope comprises at least one collision point in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of the collision point and the slope is monotonically increasing or decreasing along the collision point. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related. Further, determining a slope for a surface is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more calculations using the coordinates of the surface. Further, a human can perform the calculations using pencil and paper because the calculations can be trivial enough to be performed by hand. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsections I and III. Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites wherein the surface is a roof surface. The claim merely specifies how the constructed surfaces are related, without introducing additional elements. Accordingly, claim 20 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites “a configuration plan,” which does not fall into one of the categories of patentable subject matter at Step 1 of the analysis. Further, the “configuration plan” is generated by the method of claim 1, which is comprised of abstract ideas. The remainder of the claim does not include additional elements that, if the claim is amended to overcome the rejection based on Step 1 of the analysis, would amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Accordingly, claim 21 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites “a structure of a topology,” which is a manufacture. However, the claim recites using “the configuration plan” of claim 21, which is rejected for not being directed to a category of patentable subject matter. Further, the claim does not include a step of “generating the structure,” and, even if the claim included such a step, the limitation would merely be instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, claim 22 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites “a software” that performs the method of claim 1, which does not fall into one of the categories of patentable subject matter at Step 1 of the analysis. Further, claim 1 is rejected as being directed to a judicial exception without additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 23 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Examiner’s Note on Claim Interpretation
Explicit definitions for a number of terms are not provided in the Specification. Further, a number of terms in the claims are not considered terms of art and/or are not terms that have a commonly accepted meaning. Accordingly, the terms “collision point,” “de-watering point,” and “throat slope,” inter alia, are given interpretation as best understood from the disclosure and figures and broadest reasonable interpretation when an alternate definition is not provided. Further, due to antecedent basis issues, a number of the claims make multiple references to “a slope,” “a direction,” “a magnitude,” and “the surface element” in the same claims, thus making interpretation difficult. Thus, because the intended meaning of some claims is uncertain, the claims are interpreted as best understood in their present form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-9, 14, 16, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder, et al., (European Patent No. 3339530, hereinafter “Bauder”) in view Douglas (U.S. Patent No. 5,663,882).
Claim 1
Bauder discloses:
determining a topology of a defined bounded surface for dewatering said surface using at least one specified dewatering point , so that the surface has a monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to a collision point,
It has long been known to form thermal insulation layers on flat roofs of buildings with a slope. In addition to thermal insulation of the building, such sloped insulation also serves the purpose of ensuring effective drainage of the flat roof by allowing rainwater to flow along the slope towards a gutter or drain opening. Bauder at [0003].
The “drain hole” is analogous to a “dewatering point.”
See also FIG. 6, labeled below.
wherein the topology is determined by dividing the surface into individual surface elements each having at least one plane and,
See FIG. 6, below, illustrating nine “individual surface elements.”
starting from the dewatering point, successively determining in every plane for each surface element a slope in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction in order to form the surface with the monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to the collision point,
See FIG. 6, labeled below, wherein slopes are increasing from the dewatering point to the collision point.
wherein a throat slope is determined for at least one surface element directly adjacent to the dewatering point in that the respective surface element is divided into at least two planes and the associated surface normals intersect.
See FIG. 6, labeled below, with the “planes” of the surface element nearest the dewatering point having slopes with intersecting normals.
Figures 5 and 6 schematically show the production of a thermal insulation layer on a flat roof, wherein two areas of the thermal insulation layer adjoin each other along a valley, using a system according to the invention. This system comprises several series, each with a plurality of identical gradient panels made of an insulating material, corresponding to the gradient panel 10 shown in Figure 1. The figures show three consecutive series, the gradient plates of which are labelled 1, 2 and 3 in ascending order of height. The system further comprises a plurality of identical throat compensating plates, designated K, which correspond to the throat compensating plate 20 shown in Figure 2. Bauder at [0037].
PNG
media_image1.png
413
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bauder does not appear to disclose:
Computer-implemented method
Douglas, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
Computer-implemented method
In satisfaction of the foregoing objects and advantages, the present invention discloses a method of making a roofing cricket comprising the steps of first generating a plurality of cricket component shapes, each cricket component shape specifying the dimensions thereof and corresponding to a respective cricket component. The plurality of cricket component shapes, when assembled, form the roofing cricket. Once the desired cricket component shapes are generated, preferably via computer aided drafting, a material is selected along with a cutting machine. Douglas at col. 2, lines 13-20.
for determining a topology of a defined bounded surface for dewatering said surface using at least one specified dewatering point , so that the surface has a monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to a collision point,
It is well known in the art to use structures or "crickets" on flat roofing surfaces to divert or direct water in a particular direction or to a particular location or area, e.g., a drain. The cricket shape depends on the particular flat roof configuration it is being installed on and whether there are any other upstanding structures of the like on the roof which must interface with the cricket. Douglas at col. 1, lines 11-17.
See also FIG. 2, labeled below.
“Drain” is analogous to a “dewatering point.”
PNG
media_image2.png
233
254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Douglas is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to determining slopes of a surface from a high point to a drain. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the computer implementation of Douglas with the slope determination techniques of Bauder to result in a computer-implemented method for determining slopes of a surface from a high point to a drainage point. Motivation to combine includes automating at least a portion of the process of determining slopes, thereby reducing human error that could be introduced into the design if a computing device were not used to determine the slopes.
Claim 5
Bauder discloses:
wherein a throat slope is determined for a surface element directly adjacent in a diagonal direction to a surface element having a throat slope.
See FIG. 6, where the “adjacent throat” is diagonal to the “throat slope” (figure labels added).
PNG
media_image3.png
396
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 6
Bauder discloses:
wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a throat slope, in that a slope of a plane of the surface element is determined as monotonically increasing and/or decreasing in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction.
See, e.g., FIG. 6, wherein the “adjacent surface element” has a slope in the same direction as the “surface element,” which is analogous to “monotonically increasing and/or decreasing.”
PNG
media_image4.png
385
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 7
Bauder discloses:
wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a slope.
See FIG. 6, wherein the “adjacent surface element” that is adjacent to the “surface element” has a corresponding slope:
PNG
media_image5.png
385
503
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 8
wherein the slope is determined as a throat slope for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a slope, wherein the surface element having the slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction comprises at least one collision point and is determined as a throat slope.
See FIG. 6, wherein the “adjacent surface element” has a throat and has a “collision point”:
PNG
media_image6.png
446
484
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 9
wherein the slope of a plane of a surface element having a slope in the direction of at least one collision point is determined as a slope offset from the collision point by 90⁰.
See FIG. 6, wherein the labeled “plane” has a slope offset from the “collision point” by 90 degrees.
PNG
media_image7.png
413
436
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 14
Bauder discloses:
wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction and/or in a diagonal direction to at least two surface elements having a throat slope directly adjacent to each other in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of a point in each case, a slope is determined, wherein the surface normal of the surface element is parallel to the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope.
See FIG. 6, wherein the “surface element” has a slope that is parallel to the slopes of one of the surfaces of the “throat surface elements,” which are both adjacent to the “surface element.”
PNG
media_image8.png
446
464
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 16
Bauder discloses:
wherein a slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in the diagonal direction to a surface element having a throat slope and/or adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a flat slope, wherein the surface normal of the surface element is inclined in the same direction as the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope.
See FIG. 6, wherein the surface element has a determined slope in the same direction as the throat surface elements:
PNG
media_image9.png
446
464
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 20
Bauder discloses:
wherein the surface is a roof surface.
The present invention relates to a system for producing a thermal insulation layer on a flat roof, comprising a plurality of sloping panels made of an insulating material. Bauder at Abstract.
Claim 21
Douglas discloses:
A configuration plan saved on a data storage medium for a surface for depicting slopes determined for individual surface elements as instructions for creating a structure of a topology for dewatering a defined bounded surface according to the determined slopes, wherein the configuration plan comprises at least one dimension and a geometric shape for the individual surface elements, respectively, in order to configure the surface by a plurality of plates having the dimension and geometric shape,
Also forming part of the apparatus 10 are a computer 33 and controller 35. The computer 33 stores the information including the precise dimensions of each cricket component to be cut from the workpiece 3. This information is fed to the controller 35 which regulates movement of each of the motors 17, 21 and 31 for cutting purposes. Douglas at col. 3, line 66- col. 4, line 4.
Typically, the insulation board comes in panel shapes in four foot square sections varying in thickness between 1/2" minimum and 4" maximum. The insulating boards also are tapered in slopes ranging from 1/16" up to 1/2" per foot. Douglas at col. 1, lines 33-36.
In satisfaction of the foregoing objects and advantages, the present invention discloses a method of making a roofing cricket comprising the steps of first generating a plurality of cricket component shapes, each cricket component shape specifying the dimensions thereof and corresponding to a respective cricket component. The plurality of cricket component shapes, when assembled, form the roofing cricket. Douglas at col. 2, lines 13-20.
Bauder discloses:
wherein the configuration plan is generated by means of an automated method according to one of claims 1 , wherein the individual surface elements comprise at least one plane with the slope being determined for the surface element, respectively, and wherein the surface elements form the surface with the monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to the collision point , wherein at least one surface element directly adjacent to the dewatering point has a throat slope in that the respective surface element is divided into at least two planes and the associated surface normals intersect.
Claim 1 has been previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas. In addition to the dependency on claim 1, the remainder of the claim recites elements that are included in claim 1. Thus, those limitations are rejected for at least the same reasoning as provided with respect to claim 1.
Claim 22
Bauder and Douglas disclose:
A structure of a topology for dewatering a defined bounded surface, particularly a roof and/or parking deck, wherein said structure is built of individual plates, the dimensions and geometric shape thereof being adapted to individual surface elements
It has long been known to form thermal insulation layers on flat roofs of buildings with a slope. In addition to thermal insulation of the building, such sloped insulation also serves the purpose of ensuring effective drainage of the flat roof by allowing rainwater to flow along the slope towards a gutter or drain opening. Bauder at [0003].
The present invention relates to a system for producing a thermal insulation layer on a flat roof, wherein the thermal insulation layer has a flat base surface facing the flat roof and a flat cover surface facing away from the flat roof, which is inclined to the base surface by an angle of inclination α. Bauder at [0001].
according to a configuration plan according to claim 21,
Claim 21 has been previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas.
wherein the individual plates comprise at least one plane with the slope being determined for the plate, respectively, and wherein the plates form a surface with a monotonically increasing slope starting from the dewatering point to the collision point , wherein at least one plate directly adjacent to the dewatering point has a throat slope in that the respective plate is divided into at least two planes and the associated surface normals intersect.
Claim 1 has been previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas. In addition to the dependency on claim 1, the remainder of the claim recites elements that are included in claim 1. Thus, those limitations are rejected for at least the same reasoning as provided with respect to claim 1.
Claim 23
Douglas discloses:
A software comprising instructions, which, when being executed by a computer, cause the computer to
In satisfaction of the foregoing objects and advantages, the present invention discloses a method of making a roofing cricket comprising the steps of first generating a plurality of cricket component shapes, each cricket component shape specifying the dimensions thereof and corresponding to a respective cricket component. The plurality of cricket component shapes, when assembled, form the roofing cricket. Once the desired cricket component shapes are generated, preferably via computer aided drafting, a material is selected along with a cutting machine. Douglas at col. 2, lines 13-20.
Also forming part of the apparatus 10 are a computer 33 and controller 35. The computer 33 stores the information including the precise dimensions of each cricket component to be cut from the workpiece 3. This information is fed to the controller 35 which regulates movement of each of the motors 17, 21 and 31 for cutting purposes. Douglas at col. 3, line 66- col. 4, line 4.
carry out the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one dewatering point and/or a layout plan is determined as the input value.
Claim 1 has been previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas.
Claims 3-4, 13,and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas and further in view of Zipp (German Patent No. DE4124109A1).
Claim 3
Bauder and Douglas do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least two planes of a surface element having at least one of a throat slope implement a recess in the diagonal direction along the surface element or having a ridge slope implement a rise in the diagonal direction along the surface element.
Zipp, which is analogous art, discloses:
wherein the at least two planes of a surface element having at least one of a throat slope implement a recess in the diagonal direction along the surface element or
FIG. 7 illustrates a “throat slope” that extends along a diagonal of the “surface element.”
PNG
media_image10.png
266
305
media_image10.png
Greyscale
having a ridge slope implement a rise in the diagonal direction along the surface element.
FIG. 6 illustrates a ridge slope extending in a diagonal direction along a “surface element.”
PNG
media_image11.png
347
315
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Zipp is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to constructing a sloping roof from separate elements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the blocks disclosed in Zipp to construct the roofing assembly disclosed in Bauder. Motivation to combine includes improved construction sturdiness by utilizing the standardized blocks of Zipp as opposed to performing the board cutting procedures disclosed in Douglas.
Claim 4
Bauder and Douglas do not appear to disclose:
wherein a magnitude and/or direction of the slope of the at least two planes of a surface element is determined as a function of the slope of the at least two planes of the surface elements adjacent in a diagonal direction and/or in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction.
Zipp discloses:
wherein a magnitude and/or direction of the slope of the at least two planes of a surface element is determined as a function of the slope of the at least two planes of the surface elements adjacent in a diagonal direction and/or in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction.
For gradient elements with a rectangular base plan, a square base plate with a flat surface is provided in the area of the inlet, around which the rectangular gradient elements are arranged in a bond so that four gradients are created, each directed perpendicular to the base plate. It is unavoidable that in the valley areas (running diagonally to the base plate) individual gradient elements with their bevelled side surfaces rest against the rectangular end faces of adjacent elements, resulting in steps in the gradient. In order to avoid having to rework such steps, the gradient is limited to a maximum of 2% for the usual dimensions of these elements of 1000× 500 mm. Zipp at [0005].
See also FIG. 4, wherein elements A are adjacent to elements B, with the slope of B contingent on the slope of A. See also element C, which is diagonal to element A, with a slope contingent on element A:
PNG
media_image12.png
474
734
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim 13
Bauder and Douglas do not appear to disclose:
wherein for a surface element in which two slopes are perpendicular to each other in different directions, a ridge slope is determined.
Zipp discloses:
wherein for a surface element in which two slopes are perpendicular to each other in different directions, a ridge slope is determined.
See FIG. 6, wherein a “ridge surface element” is illustrated and includes two perpendicular planes:
PNG
media_image11.png
347
315
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim 18
Bauder and Douglas do not appear to disclose:
wherein for a surface element directly adjacent to at least three surface elements having a throat slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, a ridge slope is determined, wherein the surface normal of the surface elements intersect with the throat slope, wherein the surface normal of the surface element having the ridge slope does not intersect the surface normal of the surface elements having the throat slope.
Zipp discloses:
wherein for a surface element directly adjacent to at least three surface elements having a throat slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, a ridge slope is determined, wherein the surface normal of the surface elements intersect with the throat slope, wherein the surface normal of the surface element having the ridge slope does not intersect the surface normal of the surface elements having the throat slope.
See FIG. 8, which illustrates a ridge surface element (labeled) that is adjacent to four throat surface elements (above, below, and to the right and left).
PNG
media_image13.png
311
451
media_image13.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the roofing configuration of Bauder with the roofing configuration of Zipp to result in a configuration that includes internal corners as illustrated in FIG. 8. Motivation to combine includes allowing for additional types of roof shapes, thereby improving the usability of the resulting system.
Claim 19
Bauder and Douglas do not appear to disclose:
wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in a diagonal direction to a surface element having a throat slope, a slope is determined, wherein the surface element having the throat slope comprises at least one collision point in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of the collision point and the slope is monotonically increasing or decreasing along the collision point.
Zipp discloses:
wherein for a surface element directly adjacent in a diagonal direction to a surface element having a throat slope, a slope is determined, wherein the surface element having the throat slope comprises at least one collision point in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of the collision point and the slope is monotonically increasing or decreasing along the collision point.
See FIG. 8 (with labels added).
Surface Element 1 has a throat slope and is adjacent to the collision point.
The throat slope is monotonically increasing from the dewatering point to the collision point.
A side that includes the collision point is monotonically decreasing.
Surface Element 2 is diagonally adjacent to Surface Element 1 and has a determined slope.
PNG
media_image14.png
376
538
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas and further in view of Wacenske (U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0024376).
Claim 10
Wacenske, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
wherein for a plane of a surface element adjacent to a surface element having a slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the slopes are each aligned toward each other, a flat slope is determined, wherein the slope of the plane is zero, wherein the magnitude of the slope is equal to the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude.
See FIG. 2, wherein the “plane” is adjacent and aligned to a “surface element having a slope.” The “plane” is flat (i.e., a slope of zero) and the height of the “plane” is the same as the height of the higher side of the “adjacent element” (i.e., “the slope is equal to the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude”).
PNG
media_image15.png
360
484
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Wacenske is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to drainage solutions for roofs with a drainage (“dewatering”) point. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the flat roofing areas of Wacenske with the sloped roofing areas of Bauder and Douglas to result in a system that includes flat roofing elements in addition to sloped roofing elements. Motivation to combine includes reducing construction resources by not requiring each rooking element to be constructed with a slope and including at least some flat elements, which are less complex to construct.
Claim 15
Bauder discloses:
wherein for a surface element present between two surface elements each having a throat slope in the first direction and/or in the second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the throat slope is monotonically increasing in the direction of a point in each case,
See FIG. 6, illustrating a surface element between two adjacent surface elements with throat slopes monotonically increasing to a point:
PNG
media_image9.png
446
464
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Bauder and Douglas do not appear to disclose:
a flat slope is determined, wherein the magnitude of the slope is determined to be the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude.
Wacenske discloses:
a flat slope is determined, wherein the magnitude of the slope is determined to be the magnitude of the slope of the adjacent surface element having the greater magnitude.
See FIG. 2, wherein the surface element is flat and has a height (analogous to “slope”) that is the same as the higher end of the sloped Element.
PNG
media_image16.png
360
484
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bauder in view of Douglas and further in view of Arau.
Claim 11
Arau discloses:
wherein a ridge slope is determined for a surface element adjacent in a first direction and/or a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction to a surface element having a throat slope, and adjacent in the diagonal direction to a surface element having a slope, wherein the at least two planes of the surface element intersect and/or are inclined in the opposite direction of the slope of the surface normal of the surface element having the throat slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction.
See FIG. 26, illustrating a “ridge surface element” adjacent to a “throat surface element” and diagonal to a “slope surface element.”
At least one of the planes of the ridge surface elements is inclined an opposite direction from the throat surface element.
PNG
media_image17.png
396
625
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Arau is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to drainage solutions for roofs using sloping elements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a slope configuration as disclosed in Arau as one or more surface elements of the roof configuration disclosed in Bauder. Motivation to combine includes producing a roof that both improves drainage as well as includes photovoltaic elements, thereby increasing the versatility of the resulting roof elements.
Claim 17
Arau discloses:
wherein for a surface element adjacent to a surface element having a throat slope in a first direction and/or in a second direction aligned perpendicular to the first direction, one ridge slope each is determined, wherein the at least two planes of the surface element intersect.
See FIG. 26, wherein adjacent surface elements are a ridge slope surface element and a throat slope surface element.
PNG
media_image18.png
396
625
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights