DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because “a bird stop coupled to the roof deck to structurally support a solar panel underside of a first course of the solar panels and to structurally support a tile underside, the tile supported at the tile underside” should be --a bird stop coupled to the roof deck, the bird stop structurally supporting a solar panel of a first course of the solar panels at the solar panel underside and structurally supporting a tile at the tile underside--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bird stop coupled to the roof deck, the bird stop structurally supporting a solar panel of a first course of the solar panels at the solar panel underside and structurally supporting a tile at the tile underside must be shown or the features canceled from the claim 11. The specification discloses that “shown in FIGS. 10-11, embodiments of the roofing system 100 can include bird stops 110 that can support the underside of and ventilate the roof tiles and/or solar panels 106”, but the figures do not show the solar panel on the tile (such an arrangement apparently would require its own bird stop to fill the gaps created). Alternatively, if the system claimed is one in which the “solar panels that are integrated directly on roofing products, such as ceramic tiles”, para. 22, then such a system must be shown in the drawings. In addition, the only drawing showing solar panels over a roofing material is fig. 7 showing solar panels over shingles, not tiles (fig. 7 shows eave 112, but not the bird stop (presumably the system in which the fig. 3B bird stop is used, although the written specification only discloses that this is a bird stop “other embodiment”, para. 8). Finally, the drawings do not show the bird stop structurally supporting a solar panel of a first course of the solar panels at the solar panel underside and structurally supporting a tile at the tile underside because while the drawings show the bird stop structurally supporting the tiles, as pointed out above, the drawings do not show the bird stop supporting (structural or otherwise) any solar panels (supporting at the solar panel underside or anywhere else).
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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.
Claims 11-15 and 17-19 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eagle Roofing Products Malibu Birdstop in view of Building Consultants, Inc. Florida Product Approval, Robida (11,739,532) and Davidson (2011/0000535).
11. Eagle Roofing Products Malibu Birdstop (“Eagle”) teaches a roof system (“Birdstop”, page 11, fig. 6, and page 15) comprising:
a roof system eave (“EAVE”, page2);
a bird stop (“Birdstop”, page 11, fig. 6, and page 15) coupled to the roof deck (page 15) to block an opening beneath a first course of roofing tiles and the bird stop being under the roof tiles, page 15, the bird stop is solid and comprises a plurality of apertures (the slotted “vent” openings shown where the air enters the eave and travels up the roof, and under the tiles), and the bird stop comprises an upper contour that is complementary in shape to the underside of the first course of the roof tiles (see fig. 6 on page 11), and the bird stop comprises a mounting flange mf at a first position of the bird stop that is configured to engage the bird stop to the roof deck with a fastener, and a mounting flange (Malibu Birdstop lower mounting flange mf) at a lower portion thereof that engages and is mounted to the “ROOF DECK” (fig. 6 shows the bird stop capable of being mounted to the deck at least in that the bird stop is “placed…in its operating position”, dictionary.com, under the tile), and the bird stop structurally supporting a tile at the tile underside, page 11.
Eagle does not teach:
a) each aperture comprises a through hole and a deformed portion that protrudes from a respective through hole, each through hole comprises a length, a width and a depth, and at least one of the width or the depth comprises a maximum dimension of not greater than 1/8 inch,
b) the bird stop not including a mesh or backing material adjacent to the apertures, and
c) the deck supporting solar panels, the bird stop structurally supporting a solar panel of a first course of the solar panels at the solar panel underside, the panels adjacent the eave.
Building Consultants teaches apertures comprise a through hole (as shown in vent detail 5 6, the through hole is formed by the arch-shaped, upper, deformed metal portion, such through hole extending parallel with the viewing axis) and a deformed portion (the arch-shaped, upper, deformed metal portion) that protrudes from a respective through hole (the deformed portion “protrudes” from a respective through hole just as, for example, a handkerchief protrudes from a breast pocket), each through hole comprises a length (0.34”), a width (0.124”) and a depth (0.049”), and at least one of the width or the depth (the depth) comprises a maximum dimension of not greater than 1/8 inch (the through hole depth is 0.049”, which is less than 0.125”), and Robida teaches it is old in the art for a roof ventilation component with a hole/deformed portion-type aperture to not include a mesh or backing material adjacent to the apertures (“The off-ridge roof ventilation device should preferably also be…without a need for a screen”, col. 2, lines 5-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for each Eagle aperture to comprise a through hole and a deformed portion that protrudes from a respective through hole, each through hole comprising a length, a width and a depth, and at least one of the width or the depth comprises a maximum dimension of not greater than 1/8 inch for the improved air flow of having two openings o1 and o2 instead of essentially just the one of Eagle, and to not include a mesh or backing material adjacent to the apertures as taught by Roboda to reduce the production and material cost of including a mesh.
Davidson teaches deck 900 supports tiles 409 and solar panels 40, a bird stop 38 structurally supporting the solar panel (supporting via being attached to the tile) of a first course of the solar panels, fig. 24, at the solar panel underside, the panel at the eave, fig. 45. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put a solar panel on each tile (in the same way Applicant’s solar panels “are integrated directly on roofing products, such as ceramic tiles”, para. 22) because the solar devices are “cheaper to manufacture and install, more efficient in the conversion to electrical energy and the transmission of the electricity, to be more durable, and to be aesthetically pleasing”, para. 27.
PNG
media_image1.png
122
167
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated 5 6 Vent Detail
PNG
media_image2.png
127
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Malibu Birdstop annotated figure on page 11
12. Eagle Roofing Products Malibu Birdstop in view of Building Consultants, Robida and Davidson teaches the roof system of claim 11, and while the Eagle roof component does comprise louvers as defined in Applicant’s specification (“a single covering for an aperture that has only one opening, rather than two openings (e.g., via lancing or stamping)”, para. 24), and the Building Consultants through hole/deformed portions are referred to as a “LOUVER PATTERN” (see detail 5 6), the Eagle in view of Building Consultants roof component does not comprise louvers as claimed because in the combination bird stop the Eagle aperture is replaced with the Building Components through hole and deformed portion that protrudes from a respective through hole, the Building Consultants through hole/deformed portion being a single covering for an aperture that has “two openings (e.g., via lancing or stamping)”, para. 24) as specified, see annotated Vent Detail above.
13. Eagle Roofing Products Malibu Birdstop in view of Building Consultants, Robida and Davidson teaches the roof system of claim 11, Building Consultants further teaching at least one of the width or the depth is not greater than 1/20 inch (the depth is not greater than 1/20 inch because the depth is .049”).
14. Eagle Roofing Products Malibu Birdstop in view of Building Consultants, Robida and Davidson teaches the roof system of claim 11, Building Consultants further teaching each of the width and the depth is not greater than 1/8 inch (the width is .124” and the depth is .049”).
15. Eagle Roofing Products Malibu Birdstop in view of Building Consultants, Robida and Davidson teaches the roof system of claim 11, Building Consultants further teaching each deformed portion comprises a trapezoidal shape (see the cross-section view).
17. Eagle Roofing Products Malibu Birdstop in view of Building Consultants, Robida and Davidson teaches the roof component of claim 11, Robida further teaching each deformed portion extends outward, away from the vented roof space (the Robida deformed portion extending outward away from the vented space is analogous to the bird stop deformed portion extending outward away from the roof tiles toward the roof system eave (the vented space)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for each deformed portion to extend outward, away from the roof tiles toward the roof system eave as opposed to inward toward and beneath the roofing tiles as taught by Building Consultants (as seen in 5 and 6, the deformed portion extends up, which is inward relative to the vented space when installed), as outwardly extended Building Consultants- type deformed portions interact better with air passing through the deformed portion to allow additional air exchange.
Claim 17 is understood to be drawn to a roof system because the applicant has positively recited claim elements other than the apparatus (the roof component). The claim recites that the deformed portion extends outward, away from the roof tiles “toward” the eave of the roof system. In re Larsen, 10 Fed. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It is suggested that the limitation “extends outward, away from the roof tiles toward the eave of the roof system” could be --configured to extend outward, away from the roof tiles toward the eave of the roof system--.
18. Eagle Roofing Products Malibu Birdstop in view of Building Consultants, Robida and Davidson teaches the roof component of claim 11, Building Consultants further teaching each deformed portion extends inward (“inward” being disclosed at para. 20 as “toward and beneath the roofing tiles”) because as seen in 5 and 6, the deformed portion extends up, which is inward relative to the vented space when installed.
19. Eagle Roofing Products Malibu Birdstop in view of Building Consultants, Robida and Davidson, Eagle Roofing Products Malibu Birdstop further teaching the apertures comprise triangular array patterns (tap1 and tap2) that are not connected by other apertures,
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Flaherty reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Johansen (2016/0105143) teaches it is old in the art to structurally support solar panels on a stop 100.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached on (571)272-6754. 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633