DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status Election/Restrictions The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-13, drawn to a solar roof tile and a spacer, classified in F24S20/69. II. Claims 14-27, drawn to a ventilation batten for a roof, classified in E04D12/004. III. Claims 28-38 , drawn to a solar roof comprising a solar tile and a ventilation means , classified in F24S20/67 . The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and III are related to invention II as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the solar roofs of inventions I, III, and IV do not require a ventilation batten with the recess an opening of invention II. The subcombination has separate utility such as a ventilation batten. Inventions III is related to invention I as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the solar roofs of invention III and IV do not require the particular spacer of invention I. The subcombination has separate utility such as roof tile. The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: Different fields of search and search terms would be required as evidenced by the separate classification of the inventions. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Paul Backofen on 03/22/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group II claims 14-27. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-13 and 28-38 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 14, 15, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. US20090133687 . Regarding claim 14, Liu et al. US20090133687 discloses a ventilation batten for a solar roof (Fig. 5), comprising: a body with an upper surface configured to contact and support a downslope edge of a first roofing element (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, supporting surface 417 supports panel 31); a recess extending into a front surface of the body, the recess configured to receive and support an upslope edge of a second roofing element, such that the downslope edge of the first roofing element is spaced apart from the upslope edge of the second roofing element (best seen in Fig. 8, gap 418 receives and supports a second panel spaced from edge of 31) ; and an opening extending through the body between the upper surface and the recess, the opening configured to provide ventilation between an external region above the first roofing element and the second roofing element, to an internal region below the first roofing element (Fig. 7 and 8, air passage 415); wherein at least one of the first roofing element and the second roofing element comprise a solar roof tile (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2A panel 31 is in the shape of a tile). Regarding claim 15, Liu further discloses the ventilation batten of Claim 14, wherein the body comprises an upper spacer extending a first thickness measured between the upper surface and an upper portion of the recess (Liu, Fig. 6, corresponding to block 411. Examiner interprets in light of instant Fig. 4D, upper spacer 420A). Regarding claim 16, Liu further discloses the ventilation batten of Claim 15, wherein the body further comprises a lower spacer extending a second thickness from a lower portion of the recess to a bottom of the body (Liu, fig. 6, 412. Examiner interprets in light of instant Fig. 4D, lower spacer 420B) Regarding claim 17, Liu further discloses the ventilation batten of Claim 16, wherein the opening comprises a first opening (Fig. 7, passage 415), the ventilation batten further comprising a second opening extending through the lower spacer, the second opening comprising a third thickness (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, passage 416). 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. Claims 18-22, 25, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US20090133687 in view of Rodrigues US20170163206 . Regarding claim 18, Liu does not expressly disclose the ventilation batten of Claim 17, wherein the lower spacer further comprises a first foot and a second foot extending along a length of the body, wherein the first foot is horizontally adjacent to the second foot, and the second opening is formed between the first foot and the second foot. Rodrigues US20170163206 teaches a system for supporting solar panels on a roof (abstract) wherein support member comprise a plurality of feet horizontally adjacent each other such that an air flow opening is formed between the feet (Fig. 31, air flow openings 418, feet 417. The limitation is interpreted in light of instant specification Fig. 4C and feet 407). Rodrigues teaches that such a configuration allows cooling air to flow through and beneath the solar panels (¶132) and that the feet provide for mounting holes for attaching fasteners to the underlying roof deck (¶131). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liu such that the lower openings are formed between feet as taught by Rodrigues since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving similar solar panel mounting devices in the art with the known predictable results of providing holes for mounting fasteners while allowing air flow. Regarding claim 19, The modified Liu teaches the ventilation batten of Claim 18, wherein the body comprises a support member extending between and attaching the upper and lower spacers to each other, and forming the recess (see annotated Fig. 8 of Liu, below. Examiner interprets in light of instant specification Fig. 4D, support member 420C. Fig. 7 of Liu shows that the batten is one piece.). Regarding claim 20, The modified Liu teaches the ventilation batten of Claim 19, wherein the upper spacer comprises: a first upper leg; a first lower leg; and a first middle leg extending between a portion of the first upper leg and a portion of the first lower leg, wherein the first opening extends through the first middle leg (See Annotated Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 of Liu, below. The limitation is interpreted in light of instant specification Fig. 7 and upper leg 721, middle leg 725, and lower leg 723. Fig. 7 of Liu shows that the batten is one piece.). Regarding claim 21, Liu further discloses the ventilation batten of Claim 20, wherein the lower spacer comprises: a second upper leg; a second lower leg; and a second middle leg extending between a portion of the second upper leg and a portion of the second lower leg, wherein the second opening extends through the second middle leg (See Annotated Fig. 7 of Liu, below. The limitation is interpreted in light of instant specification Fig. 7 and upper leg 722, middle leg 726, and lower leg 724). . Regarding claim 22, The modified Liu teaches the ventilation batten of Claim 21, wherein the support member extends between an opposing end of each of the first lower leg and the second upper leg to form the recess (see annotated Fig. 8 of Liu below. The limitation is interpreted in light of instant specification Fig. 7). Regarding claim 25, The modified Liu teaches the ventilation batten of Claim 19, further comprising a clip extending from an upper portion of the upper spacer, the clip forming a groove configured to receive the downslope edge of the first roofing element, and secure the first roofing element to the spacer (Liu, Fig. 8, U-shaped pads 32 represent a clip which with plate 44 secures 31 to the supporting surface 417). Regarding claim 26, The modified Liu teaches a solar roof, comprising the ventilation batten of Claim 25, further comprising the first roofing element and the second roofing element (Liu, Fig. 8). Regarding claim 27, The modified Liu teaches a solar roof of Claim 26, wherein the first roofing element comprises the solar roof tile, and the second roofing element comprises a roofing element different from the first roofing element (Liu, Fig. 8). Claims 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US20090133687 in view of Rodrigues US20170163206 and in view of Rodrigues et al. US20200014327 . Regarding claim 23, Liu does not expressly disclose the ventilation batten of Claim 22, wherein the batten comprises sheet metal. The difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art amounts to a simple substitution or selection of known materials in the art. Rodrigues et al. US20200014327 teaches a mounting system for solar panels to roof (Fig. 6, Fig. 12, abstract) wherein the support frames are constructed of sheet metal (¶40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liu so as to be constructed from sheet metal since doing so amounts to a simple substitution of known materials in the art with the known predictable results of supporting solar panels. Regarding claim 24, The modified Liu teaches the ventilation batten of Claim 23, wherein the batten comprises a single integral piece of material (Liu, Fig. 6 and Fig. 5 ). Examiner notes the breadth of the claim language. The use of the open-ended transitional phrase “comprises” merely requires that the batten include at least a single piece of material. Additional elements seen in Fig. 6 are not excluded from scope of the claims. Such and interpretation is commensurate with at least instant specification Fig. 7 which includes separate fasteners 575 or ¶198 which discusses separate screens. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 14-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11543155 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the presently pending claims are broader than the claims of parent U.S. Patent No. 11543155 the claims of which teach all the features of the pending claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Deepak Deean whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3347 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 10-4 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Hoang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 517-272-6460 . 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. /DEEPAK A DEEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762