DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 10/16/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-9, 11, and 12 has/have been amended, claim(s) 10 has/have been cancelled, and claim(s) 13 has/have been added. Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-13 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flaherty et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,186,111).
Regarding claim 1, Flaherty et al. teaches a support (roofing module; abstract) for a roof-mounted photovoltaic panel (abstract) capable of being placed on a roof tile (examiner notes that the roof tile is not being positively claimed), said support comprising a curved base (302) having a shape that is the same as a high portion of the roof tile where said support will be applied (contours sized and shaped to match the size and shape of the contours and pans of conventional clay or concrete S-tiles; abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Flaherty et al. teaches the curved base has side flaps (312, 314) capable of placing fixing pins on the roof tile (via fastener holes 372).
Regarding claim 4, Flaherty et al. teaches the curved base has a straight base portion (322) which includes a central portion (central portion of 322) and side rails (vertical side edges / corners at 470; figure 9) to attach the photovoltaic panel (400/402) equipped with a surface layer (402).
Regarding claim 5, Flaherty et al. teaches the photovoltaic panel is alternatively secured by screws directly onto the straight base, using a sealing rubber (it is understood that the photovoltaic panel is capable of functioning as alternatively secured by screws directly onto the straight base, using a sealing rubber, however, the limitation “alternatively” implies that the recitation that follows it is optional and therefore not required to be shown by the prior art).
Regarding claim 9, Flaherty et al. teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed invention. With regards to the limitation: “the curved base alternatively contains hollow elements”, the limitation “alternatively”, implies that the recitation that follows it is optional and therefore not required to be shown by the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Flaherty et al. teaches a support (roofing module; abstract) for a roof-mounted photovoltaic panel (abstract) capable of being placed on a roof tile, said support comprising a straight base (322) which includes a central portion (central portion of 322) and side rails (vertical side edges / corners at 470; figure 9) in order to attach a photovoltaic panel (400/402) with a surface layer (402).
Regarding claim 12, Flaherty et al. teaches the support is capable of being fixed by screws on a flat face of the roof tile (screws in holes 372; col. 8, lines 49-54; the examiner notes that the roof tile is not positively claimed).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,186,111).
Regarding claim 8, Flaherty et al. teaches the surface layer (402) of the photovoltaic panel (400/402) but does not specifically disclose it is transparent, self-cleaning, and anti-reflective.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the photovoltaic panel to be transparent, self-cleaning, and anti-reflective, since it is known that photovoltaic panels should be at least partially transparent so that sunlight can reach the solar cells, are capable of self-cleaning as prolonged sunlight would dry any dew obstructing the panel surface, and should be at least partially anti-reflective so as to maximize the sunlight captured by the solar cells.
Claim(s) 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,186,111) in view of Ressler (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0289679).
Regarding claim 3, Flaherty et al. does not specifically disclose the support is fixed on the roof tile by an adhesive.
Ressler discloses a solar assembly on a roof (abstract) wherein the support is fixed on the roof tile by an adhesive (paragraph 15).
Therefore, from the teaching of Ressler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the solar assembly of Flaherty et al. such that the support is fixed on the roof tile by an adhesive, as taught by Ressler, in order to facilitate assembly by reducing the number of mechanical parts required, and therefore having to be carried and maintained by an installer.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,186,111) in view of Toft et al. (CA 2904384 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Flaherty et al. teaches the curved base is made of polymeric material (plastic; abstract) but does not specifically disclose containing additives that provide mechanical and UV resistance.
Toft discloses a roofing composite material (abstract) containing additives that provide mechanical and UV resistance (impact modifiers and UV stabilizers; col. 8, lines 17-20).
Therefore, from the teaching of Toft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the solar assembly of Flaherty et al. to include additives that provide mechanical and UV resistance, as taught by Toft, in order to further protect the roofing materials from weather degradation to prolong the lifespan of the roofing assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Toft in the combination discloses the additives are selected from the group consisting of a flame retardant (col. 8, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 13, Toft in the combination discloses the polymeric material is polyvinylidene fluoride (col. 4, lines 18-20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
New reference Toft et al. (CA 2904384 A1) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s amendment regarding
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that Flaherty et al. does not specifically disclose “a support installed on top of the existing roof, i.e., a support that covers only a high part of the tile (a segment)”, has been carefully considered, however, this language is not in the claim limitation. The claim recites “capable of being placed on a roof tile” and “same shape as a high portion of a roof tile”. Thus, since the product of Flaherty et al. is capable of being placed on a roof tile, and has a shape that is as a high portion [broadly interpreted] of a roof tile [which is not being positively claimed], the limitations are met.
In addition, applicant argues that the base of the current application is “fixed without the need to drill holes in the roof as was the case in the prior art” and further argues that Ressler’s substrate covers the entire roof profile including both the high and low parts whereas the present claims cover only a high part of the tile, however, this specific language is also not in the claim.
Lastly, the argument that “the present claims improve over the prior art because they allow a large amount of air to circulate permanently below the photovoltaic cell due to its own construction, in which the cell is located well above the roof and does not receive as much heat. This ensures high efficiency in energy generation” has been considered, however, this language is not in the claim. Therefore, since Flaherty et al. teaches all of the structural and positively claimed elements, the limitations are met.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633