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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 29th, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous grounds for rejection in the Office Action dated August 1st, 2025 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
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 1-8, 10, 12-14, and 16-23 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “an auxiliary steel”. Its unclear what structure corresponds to an auxiliary steel. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant recites, “an auxiliary steel”. Its unclear what structure corresponds to an auxiliary steel. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant recites, “an auxiliary steel”. Its unclear what structure corresponds to an auxiliary steel. Appropriate action is required.
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 1-3, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turrin et al. (EP 2103755 A2) in view of Dang (WO-2021042805-A1) in view of Risotto “What Is A Metal Purlin?: Types, Sizes, Uses, and Cost” in view of Risotto “Choosing The Right Screw For Your Metal Panels”. Dang is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 1, Turrin et al. discloses a photovoltaic metal roofing system (Figs. 1-6 & Paragraph 0003), comprising:
a first corrugated sheet having a first bottom plate, a first bearing plate and a second bearing plate, the first bearing plate and the second bearing plate being located at two sides of the first bottom plate (See Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 1, below);
a second corrugated sheet having a second bottom plate, a third bearing plate, and a fourth bearing plate, the third bearing plate and the fourth bearing plate being located at two sides of the second bottom plate (See Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 1, below).
Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 1
PNG
media_image1.png
386
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the second bearing plate and the third bearing plate are bonded together and partially integrated to define a connecting structure, having an inverted U-shape (See Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 2, below);
Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
401
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first solar panel located on the first bearing plate and the second bearing plate (Fig. 5, #16 left element); and
a second solar panel located on the third bearing plate and fourth bearing plate (Fig. 5, #16 right element & Paragraph 0017).
Turrin et al. does not disclose two steel bodies locked to a first bottom surface of the first bottom plate and a second bottom surface of the second bottom plate; and an auxiliary steel locked to one of the steel bodies and enclosed by the connecting structure.
Dang discloses two bodies locked to a first bottom surface of the first bottom plate and a second bottom surface of the second bottom plate (Fig. 1. Location I, #10 - purlins & Page 2, Last Paragraph); and an auxiliary member (Fig. 5, #14) locked to one of the metal bodies (Fig. 5, #10, also see Fig. 1) and enclosed by a connecting structure (Figs. 5-6, #14 is enclosed by the connecting structure formed by overlapping first and second bottom plates 11 & Page 4, 1st & 3rd Paragraph). Dang discloses that this configuration has improved wind resistance and improved safety (Page 4, 3rd Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have two metals bodies locked to a first bottom surface of the first bottom plate and a second bottom surface of the second bottom plate and an auxiliary member locked to one of the metal bodies and enclosed by the connecting structure in Turrin et al. photovoltaic metal roofing system for the advantages of having a configuration with improved wind resistance and improved safety.
Modified Turrin et al. does not disclose that the two metal bodies are steel.
Risotto discloses that purlins (analogous to Dang’s two bodies) can be metal and are lightweight horizontal beams or bars that are used for structural support that increase a buildings resistance to heavy winds (Page 3, What Is A Metal Purlin?). Risotto teaches that these are made from steel (Page 5, Metal Purlin Finishes – they have finishes to protect the bare steel). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select steel as an appropriate material for the two bodies of Turrin et al. to be steel for the advantages of having a configuration that is lightweight and increases a building resistance to heavy winds.
Modified Turrin et al. does not disclose that the auxiliary member is steel but are in the forms of screws (Figs. 5-6. & Page 4, 3rd Paragraph).
Subsequently, the second Risotto reference discloses that something as small and simple as screws and fasteners are easy to disregard as a vital component of a construction project, wherein they can result in 100% of the roof’s failure (2nd Page, 1st Paragraph), and that stainless steel is one of the most common materials used (Page 5, 6th bullet), and is recommended for use if a metal roof comprises aluminum, or copper (Page 6, 1st-2nd bullet). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use steel as the material of modified Turrin et al. auxiliary member to ensure that it isn’t a cause of roof failure, while also appreciating that it is not just one of the most common materials used when attaching to metal roofing structures but the recommended material when attaching to metal roofing structures.
In view of Claim 2, Turrin et al., Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Turrin et al. teaches that the first and second bottom plates have stiffening ribs (Fig. 4, #22), wherein a top surface of the stiffening rib of the first or second solar cell is closer to the first or second solar panel relative to the other one of the bottom surface of the first and second bottom plate (Fig. 4, #22 in relationship to left and right solar panel #16).
In view of Claim 3, Turrin et al., Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Turrin et al. teaches that the first and second bottom plate has a bearing portion with two protruding ribs opposite to each other (Figure 4, #22).
In view of Claim 4, Turrin et al., Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Turrin et al. teaches a flat supporting piece located between the two protruding ribs (Figure 4, the flat portion of #22 that connects the angled protruding opposite ribs).
In view of Claim 22, Turrin et al., Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Turrin et al. teaches that the stiffening rib is from direction connection with a corresponding one of the first solar panel and the second solar panel (Figure 5, #22 does not directly touch the solar panel).
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 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turrin et al. (EP 2103755 A2) in view of Derieppe (EP 2600078 A2). Derieppe is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 5, Turrin et al., Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Turrin et al. does not disclose a plurality of double-sided structural tapes located on a bottom surface of one of the first solar panel and the second solar panel
Derieppe discloses a plurality of double-sided structural tapes located on a bottom surface of a solar panel that’s advantageously used to bond a photovoltaic cell to a corrugated rib for the advantage of allowing a solar panel to expand without comprising the quality of the bonding (Paragraph 0013-0016). Derieppe teaches that the elimination of a complex fixing between a PV panel and a corrugated cover plate results in a reduction in the weight of the assembly, and a lowering of manufacturing costs (Paragraph 0006). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the double-sided structural tapes as disclosed by Derieppe in Turrin et al. photovoltaic metal roofing system such that the first and second solar panel are bonded to the corrugated ribs at a plurality of points for the advantage of allowing the solar panels to expand without comprising the quality of the bonding, reducing the weight of the assembly and lowering the manufacturing costs.
In view of Claim 6, Turrin et al., Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are Derieppe are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Derieppe was relied upon to teach why it would be obvious to fix the first and second solar panel in Turrin et al. to the respective corrugated underlying support structures but additionally discloses that the double sided structural tape runs from one end of a rib or corrugation from which it equips.
It is the Examiner’s position that applying the double-sided tape of Derieppe to Turrin et al. corrugated rib structures (Figure 4, #15) would result in double sided tape being applied that runs from the edge of each corrugated rib structure 15 and the overlapping photovoltaic panel would be “flush” or approaching zero at these edge portions and thus meeting the limitation “wherein a distance between one of the double-sided structural tapes and an edge of one of the first solar panel and the second solar panel is less than 7 mm.
In view of Claim 7, Turrin et al., Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are Derieppe are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Derieppe teaches that the double-sided structural tape has a width between 10-25 mm (Paragraph 0018). Turrin et al. discloses four solar panel attachment points (Figure 5, #16 is attached at four locations indicated by the downward arrows). Thus, modified Turrin et al. teaches the double-sided structural tape with a width of 10-25 mm at four distinct locations resulting in a sum of these “first widths” of the double-sided structural tapes on each of the first and second solar panel to range from 40-100 mm.
In regards to the specific ranges, “10 mm and 50 mm” and “60 mm and 150 mm”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Derieppe because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
In view of Claim 10, Turrin et al., Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are Derieppe are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Turrin et al. does not disclose an adhesive located between the second bearing plate and the first solar panel and located between the fourth bearing plate and the second solar panel.
Derieppe discloses a plurality of double-sided adhesive structural tapes located on a bottom surface of a solar panel that’s advantageously used to bond a photovoltaic cell to a corrugated rib for the advantage of allowing a solar panel to expand without comprising the quality of the bonding (Paragraph 0013-0016). Derieppe teaches that the elimination of a complex fixing between a PV panel and a corrugated cover plate results in a reduction in the weight of the assembly, and a lowering of manufacturing costs (Paragraph 0006). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the double-sided adhesive structural tapes as disclosed by Derieppe in Turrin et al. photovoltaic metal roofing system such that an adhesive is located between the second bearing plate and the first solar panel and located between the fourth bearing plate and the second solar panel for the advantage of allowing the solar panels to expand without comprising the quality of the bonding, reducing the weight of the assembly and lowering the manufacturing costs.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turrin et al. (EP 2103755 A2) in view of Dang (WO-2021042805-A1) in view of Risotto “What Is A Metal Purlin?: Types, Sizes, Uses, and Cost” in view of Risotto “Choosing The Right Screw For Your Metal Panels” in view of Derieppe (EP 2600078 A2) in view of Fisher (US 2018/0278198 A1). Derieppe is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 8, Turrin et al., Dang, both Risotto disclosures and Derieppe are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Although, Derieppe was relied upon to disclose that the sum of the first widths range from 40-100 mm, modified Turrin et al. does not disclose a specific (“second”) width of the first and second solar panels and thus there is an absence in the teaching of a ratio of the sum of the first widths to the second width ranges between 5-42%.
Fisher discloses that solar panel tile width can be selected or configured to be equal to a span of metal pan such that tiling format PV modules can be placed on adjacent raised portions of roof pans leaving a working space between tiling format PV modules and primary surface planes, wherein the specific (“second”) widths of these panels are 22 inches corresponding to approximately 559 mm (Paragraph 0074). Fisher teaches that this formatting provides greater flexibility in mounting and arranging of PV elements and thus potentially increasing the energy collection density for any given PV array installation (Paragraph 0008). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the PV tile dimensions as disclosed by Fisher in modified Turrin et al. such that the “second” withs of the first and second solar panels are 559 mm for the advantages of having a configuration that leaves a working space between PV panels, or adopting a formatting that provides greater flexibility in mounting and arranging of PV elements and thus potentially increasing the energy collection density for any given PV array installation. The Examiner notes that this combination results in a W3 or 60 mm and a W1 of 559 mm resulting in a ratio of a sum of the first widths to the second width of ~11%.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turrin et al. (EP 2103755 A2) in view of Fisher (US 2018/0278198 A1) in view of Dang (WO-2021042805-A1) in view of Risotto “What Is A Metal Purlin?: Types, Sizes, Uses, and Cost” in view of Risotto “Choosing The Right Screw For Your Metal Panels” in view of Hudson (US 2017/0201207 A1).
In view of Claim 12, Turrin et al. discloses a photovoltaic metal roofing system (Figs. 1-6 & Paragraph 0003), comprising:
a first corrugated sheet having a first bottom plate, a first bearing plate and a second bearing plate, the first bearing plate and the second bearing plate being located at two sides of the first bottom plate (See Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 4, below);
a second corrugated sheet having a second bottom plate, a third bearing plate, and a fourth bearing plate, the third bearing plate and the fourth bearing plate being located at two sides of the second bottom plate (See Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 4, below).
Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 4
PNG
media_image3.png
495
1096
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the second bearing plate and the third bearing plate are bonded together and partially integrated to define a connecting structure, the connecting structure being free of any through hole thereon (See Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 5, below);
Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 5
PNG
media_image4.png
418
1162
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a first solar panel located on the first bearing plate and the second bearing plate (Fig. 5, #16 left element); and
a second solar panel located on the third bearing plate and fourth bearing plate (Fig. 5, #16 right element & Paragraph 0017).
Turrin et al. does not disclose two first solar panels located on the first bearing plate and the second bearing plate, a first distance between the two first solar panels being ranged between 1-20 cm and two second solar panels located on the third bearing plate and the fourth bearing plate, a second distance between the two second solar panels being ranged between 1-20 cm.
Fisher disclose two first solar panels on a first and second bearing plate and two second solar panels on a third and fourth bearing plate (Figure 4B, #408 & Paragraph 0067 – solar panels are arranged in row and column patterns and secured to the underlying metal roof pans). Fisher discloses that various embodiments of tiling format PV modules with different numbers of solar cells allows flexibility in selecting solar panels appropriate for any given system installation or roof surface area (Paragraph 0061). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have two first solar panels on a first and second bearing plate and two second solar panels on a third and fourth bearing plate as disclosed by Fisher in Turrin et al. photovoltaic metal roofing system as having a different number of solar cells allows flexibility for any given system installation.
Hudson discloses that a photovoltaic module array has a spacing schedule that’s generally dependent on the size of the photovoltaic modules and the gaps between photovoltaic modules of the array such that the spacing schedule of photovoltaic module between adjacent photovoltaic modules has a gap of about 0.5-2 inches (Paragraph 0031). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrive at first and second distances between the respective two first solar panels and two second solar panels to have a spacing between 0.5-2 inches as disclosed by Hudson because these spacing values are generally dependent on the size of photovoltaic modules. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the range of 0.5-2 inches is an identified and predictable range of spacing for photovoltaic modules disposed on a roof and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions in the prior art (that of PV spacing dimensions in an array) and would have a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143, I, E.
Turrin et al. does not disclose two steel bodies locked to a first bottom surface of the first bottom plate and a second bottom surface of the second bottom plate; and an auxiliary steel locked to one of the steel bodies and enclosed by the connecting structure.
Dang discloses two bodies locked to a first bottom surface of the first bottom plate and a second bottom surface of the second bottom plate (Fig. 1. Location I, #10 - purlins & Page 2, Last Paragraph); and an auxiliary member (Fig. 5, #14) locked to one of the metal bodies (Fig. 5, #10, also see Fig. 1) and enclosed by a connecting structure (Figs. 5-6, #14 is enclosed by the connecting structure formed by overlapping first and second bottom plates 11 & Page 4, 1st & 3rd Paragraph). Dang discloses that this configuration has improved wind resistance and improved safety (Page 4, 3rd Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have two metals bodies locked to a first bottom surface of the first bottom plate and a second bottom surface of the second bottom plate and an auxiliary member locked to one of the metal bodies and enclosed by the connecting structure in Turrin et al. photovoltaic metal roofing system for the advantages of having a configuration with improved wind resistance and improved safety.
Modified Turrin et al. does not disclose that the two metal bodies are steel.
Risotto discloses that purlins (analogous to Dang’s two bodies) can be metal and are lightweight horizontal beams or bars that are used for structural support that increase a buildings resistance to heavy winds (Page 3, What Is A Metal Purlin?). Risotto teaches that these are made from steel (Page 5, Metal Purlin Finishes – they have finishes to protect the bare steel). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select steel as an appropriate material for the two bodies of Turrin et al. to be steel for the advantages of having a configuration that is lightweight and increases a building resistance to heavy winds.
Modified Turrin et al. does not disclose that the auxiliary member is steel but are in the forms of screws (Figs. 5-6. & Page 4, 3rd Paragraph).
Subsequently, the second Risotto reference discloses that something as small and simple as screws and fasteners are easy to disregard as a vital component of a construction project, wherein they can result in 100% of the roof’s failure (2nd Page, 1st Paragraph), and that stainless steel is one of the most common materials used (Page 5, 6th bullet), and is recommended for use if a metal roof comprises aluminum, or copper (Page 6, 1st-2nd bullet). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use steel as the material of modified Turrin et al. auxiliary member to ensure that it isn’t a cause of roof failure, while also appreciating that it is not just one of the most common materials used when attaching to metal roofing structures but the recommended material when attaching to metal roofing structures.
In view of Claim 13, Turrin et al., Fisher, Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are and Hudson are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Hudson was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious that the first distance is 0.5-2 inches.
Fisher discloses that PV tile length for any given installation can be selected or configured to fit a desired number of rows of tiling format PV modules, wherein the PV tile length are 22 inches (Paragraph 0074). This results in a ratio of a first distance to a longitudinal length of one of the two first solar panels ~1% to 9%.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turrin et al. (EP 2103755 A2) in view of Fisher (US 2018/0278198 A1) in view of Dang (WO-2021042805-A1) in view of Risotto “What Is A Metal Purlin?: Types, Sizes, Uses, and Cost” in view of Risotto “Choosing The Right Screw For Your Metal Panels” in view of Hudson (US 2017/0201207 A1) in view of Spinelli et al. (US 2020/0186079 A1).
In view of Claim 14, Turrin et al., Fisher, Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are and Hudson are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Hudson was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious that the first distance is 0.5-2 inches (0.99-5 cm). Modified Turrin et al. does not disclose the overall height of the corrugated sheet is between 3-15cm such that a ratio of the first distance to the overall height is ranged between 7-667%
Spinelli et al. teaches the overall height of a corrugated sheet is 3.8 cm (Fig. 12d & Paragraph 0099). Spinelli et al. teaches that this height difference may realize one form or the other but in the case that there is a height difference present it does advantageously provide a vented air gap (Paragraph 0075). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a height difference of 3.8 cm as disclosed by Spinelli et al. in Turrin et al. photovoltaic metal roofing system for the advantage of ensuring a vented air gap. This results in a ratio of the first distance to the overall height 26-131%.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turrin et al. (EP 2103755 A2) in view of Fisher (US 2018/0278198 A1) in view of Dang (WO-2021042805-A1) in view of Risotto “What Is A Metal Purlin?: Types, Sizes, Uses, and Cost” in view of Risotto “Choosing The Right Screw For Your Metal Panels” in view of Hudson (US 2017/0201207 A1) in view of Ceria (US 7,469,508 B2).
In view of Claim 16, Turrin et al., Fisher, Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are and Hudson are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Modified Turrin et al. does not disclose at least one safety module connected to at least one of the first solar panels and the second solar panels, the safety module being configured to optimize a flow of electricity and rapidly shut down a power.
Ceria discloses a junction box located on the rear part of a photovoltaic module (solar panel) that comprises electrical components such as diodes, fuses, and overload-protection systems (Column 1, Lines 44-61). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a junction box as disclosed by Ceria disposed on a third bottom surface modified Turrin et al. first and second solar panels such that the safety module comprises an overload-protection system and thus is configured to optimize a flow of electricity and rapidly shut down a power. Ceria was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to dispose “safety modules” on the bottom of photovoltaic modules. Ceria discloses that these “safety modules” are disclosed “relatively” close to an adjacent end of a photovoltaic panel (Figure 3, #14B is disposed adjacent to an end of the photovoltaic panel 14). Fisher discloses that the general dimensions of solar panels are 22 inches by 22 inches (Paragraph 0074). It is the Examiner’s position that “the operating distance” would be at least less than 22 inches, and as can be seen by Figure 3 of Ceria, the edge opposite to the edge the safety module is closest to would clearly be greater than 0.39 inches while satisfying the requirement of not being greater than 38.97 inches (990 mm).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turrin et al. (EP 2103755 A2) in view of Yoon (US 2014/0345212 A1) in view of Fisher (US 2018/0278198 A1) in view of Dang (WO-2021042805-A1) in view of Risotto “What Is A Metal Purlin?: Types, Sizes, Uses, and Cost” in view of Risotto “Choosing The Right Screw For Your Metal Panels”.
In view of Claim 19, Turrin et al. discloses a photovoltaic metal roofing system (Figs. 1-6 & Paragraph 0003), comprising:
a first corrugated sheet having a first bottom plate, a first bearing plate and a second bearing plate, the first bearing plate and the second bearing plate being located at two sides of the first bottom plate (See Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 4, below);
a second corrugated sheet having a second bottom plate, a third bearing plate, and a fourth bearing plate, the third bearing plate and the fourth bearing plate being located at two sides of the second bottom plate (See Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 4, below).
Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 4
PNG
media_image3.png
495
1096
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the second bearing plate and the third bearing plate are bonded together and partially integrated to define a connecting structure, the connecting structure being free of any through hole thereon (See Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 5, below);
Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 5
PNG
media_image4.png
418
1162
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a first solar panel located on the first bearing plate and the second bearing plate (Fig. 5, #16 left element); and
a second solar panel located on the third bearing plate and fourth bearing plate (Fig. 5, #16 right element & Paragraph 0017).
Turrin et al. does disclose attachment points at bottom surfaces of the first corrugated sheet and the second corrugated sheet (Fig. 4-5, #14 & #23 – Paragraph 0026) but does not disclose two steel bodies locked to bottom surfaces of the first and second corrugated sheet and the steel structural interval between these points being between 50-275 cm.
Yoon discloses attachment points analogous to Turrin et al. that take the form of steel bodies (Figure 2, #22 & #50 - Paragraph 0027) that are locked to bottom surfaces of first and second corrugated sheets (Figs. 1-2, #10 & #20 – roofing panels). Yoon’s invention is directed to a roof panel structure on which a solar module panel could be easily attached (Paragraph 0001). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steel bodies of Yoon in Turrin et al. photovoltaic metal roofing system such that two steel bodies are locked to bottom surfaces of the first and second corrugated sheet for the advantage of having a configuration that results in a easier way to attach the first and second solar panel.
Fisher discloses that the length of a corrugated metal roof panel analogous to Turrin et al. first and second corrugated sheets from end to end can range between 24 inches and 48 inches and can be bonded together and grounded as per the National Electric Code (Figure 5A, #500 & #502 – Paragraph 0072). Fisher teaches that this formatting provides greater flexibility in mounting and arranging of PV elements and thus potentially increasing the energy collection density for any given PV array installation (Paragraph 0008).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt this end-to-end length of the first and second corrugated sheet such that the steel structural interval is essentially the length of the sheet, that being 24-48 inches (~61-122 cm), thus ensuring they can be adequately bonded and grounded together as per the National Electric Code and for the advantage of allowing flexibility for any given system installation.
Turrin et al. does not disclose two steel bodies locked to a first bottom surface of the first bottom plate and a second bottom surface of the second bottom plate; and an auxiliary steel locked to one of the steel bodies and enclosed by the connecting structure.
Dang discloses two bodies locked to a first bottom surface of the first bottom plate and a second bottom surface of the second bottom plate (Fig. 1. Location I, #10 - purlins & Page 2, Last Paragraph); and an auxiliary member (Fig. 5, #14) locked to one of the metal bodies (Fig. 5, #10, also see Fig. 1) and enclosed by a connecting structure (Figs. 5-6, #14 is enclosed by the connecting structure formed by overlapping first and second bottom plates 11 & Page 4, 1st & 3rd Paragraph). Dang discloses that this configuration has improved wind resistance and improved safety (Page 4, 3rd Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have two metals bodies locked to a first bottom surface of the first bottom plate and a second bottom surface of the second bottom plate and an auxiliary member locked to one of the metal bodies and enclosed by the connecting structure in Turrin et al. photovoltaic metal roofing system for the advantages of having a configuration with improved wind resistance and improved safety.
Modified Turrin et al. does not disclose that the two metal bodies are steel.
Risotto discloses that purlins (analogous to Dang’s two bodies) can be metal and are lightweight horizontal beams or bars that are used for structural support that increase a buildings resistance to heavy winds (Page 3, What Is A Metal Purlin?). Risotto teaches that these are made from steel (Page 5, Metal Purlin Finishes – they have finishes to protect the bare steel). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select steel as an appropriate material for the two bodies of Turrin et al. to be steel for the advantages of having a configuration that is lightweight and increases a building resistance to heavy winds.
Modified Turrin et al. does not disclose that the auxiliary member is steel but are in the forms of screws (Figs. 5-6. & Page 4, 3rd Paragraph).
Subsequently, the second Risotto reference discloses that something as small and simple as screws and fasteners are easy to disregard as a vital component of a construction project, wherein they can result in 100% of the roof’s failure (2nd Page, 1st Paragraph), and that stainless steel is one of the most common materials used (Page 5, 6th bullet), and is recommended for use if a metal roof comprises aluminum, or copper (Page 6, 1st-2nd bullet). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use steel as the material of modified Turrin et al. auxiliary member to ensure that it isn’t a cause of roof failure, while also appreciating that it is not just one of the most common materials used when attaching to metal roofing structures but the recommended material when attaching to metal roofing structures.
In view of Claim 20, Turrin et al., Yoon, Fisher, Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 19. Turrin et al. does not disclose a longitudinal length of one of the first and second solar panel and therefore does not disclose a ratio of a longitudinal length of one of the first solar panel and the second solar panel to the steel structural interval is ranged between 25-561%.
Fisher was relied upon to disclose that the steel structural interval is 24-48 inches. Fisher additionally discloses that PV tile length for any given installation can be selected or configured to fit a desired number of rows of tiling format PV modules, wherein the PV tile length are 22 inches (Paragraph 0074). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt this length of 24 inches in modified Turrin et al. photovoltaic metal roofing system for the advantages of being able to select or configure a desired number of row of tiling format PV modules. The resulting configuration results in a ratio of a longitudinal length of one of the first solar panel and the second solar panel to the steel structural interval to be ranged between 50-100%.
In view of Claim 21, Turrin et al., Yoon, Fisher, Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 19. Turrin et al. discloses that the first and second corrugated sheets are superimposed on a thermal insulation layer (Paragraph 0003), thus this would result in at least one insulation panel located between the two steel bodies via the gap in the interval and the thermal insulation layers are present between both first and second corrugated sheet.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turrin et al. (EP 2103755 A2) in view of Spinelli et al. (US 2020/0186079 A1) in view of Dang (WO-2021042805-A1) in view of Risotto “What Is A Metal Purlin?: Types, Sizes, Uses, and Cost” in view of Risotto “Choosing The Right Screw For Your Metal Panels”.
In view of Claim 23, Turrin et al., Dang, and both Risotto disclosures are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Turrin et al. discloses the first and second corrugated sheet has a first top surface (Figure 3, #11) and the first and second solar panel have a second top surface (Figure 3, top of element 16), the first top surface is higher than the second top surface but Turrin et al. is silent on the dimensions.
Spinelli et al. teaches a height difference between a first top surface of a first or second corrugated sheet with a roofing deck is 38 mm (Fig. 12d & Paragraph 0099). Spinelli et al. teaches that this height difference may realize one form or the other but in the case that there is a height difference present it does advantageously provide a vented air gap (Paragraph 0075). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the height difference as disclosed by Spinelli et al. in Turrin et al. photovoltaic metal roofing system for the advantage of ensuring a vented air gap.
In regards to the limitation that “the first top surface and the second top surface have a height difference ranged between 3mm and 40mm”, the resulting combination of incorporating Spinelli et al. height difference between a first top surface of a first/second corrugated sheet with a roofing deck of 38 mm would result in the first top surface of Turrin et al. first/second corrugated sheet to have a height difference with the first top surface of the first/second solar panel of more than 3 mm and it must be certainly less than 38 mm (See Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 3, below).
Annotated Turrin et al. Figure 3
PNG
media_image5.png
533
728
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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 P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights