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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 12-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanigan (US 2018/0115275 A1) in view of Zhu (CN105421819A, Machine Translation) in view of Grieco (US 2013/0014455 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Flanigan discloses a system, comprising (see Fig. 6 and Fig. 2A [0024] [0055]-[0058][0079]):
a roof deck (see Fig. 6),
wherein the roof deck includes a plurality of sloped roof planes (See Fig. 6, opposing sides will also have sloped planes),
wherein the plurality of sloped roof planes includes
a first roof plane (see plane which has lowest height either pitched portion or flat portion above windows or portion on opposing side),
wherein the first roof plane includes a first surface area, and
a second roof plane (other plane shown in Fig. 6 above garage portion),
wherein the second roof plane includes a second surface area,
wherein the second roof plane is different from the first roof plane, and
a third roof plane (portion on opposing side or plane which has lowest height either pitched portion or flat portion above windows),
wherein the third roof plane includes a third surface area (plane portion on opposing side, or plane which has lowest height either pitched portion or flat portion above windows),
wherein the third roof plane is different from the first roof plane and the second roof plane;
a plurality of photovoltaic modules installed in an array ([0053], PV roof tiles connected in string) on the first surface area of the first roof plane ([0079] PV-tiles [0047] non-regular patter);
wherein each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes a plurality of solar cells (see Fig. 2J, 224 [0071] solar cells shown as being part of 206);
a plurality of first roofing shingles ([0079] non-PV tiles) wherein each of the plurality of first roofing shingles does not include a solar cell, wherein each of the plurality of first roofing shingles is composed of at least a first material (inherently made of a material), wherein the plurality of first roofing shingles is installed on the second surface area of the second roof plane ([0079])
and a plurality of second roofing shingles (non-PV roof tile on a third surface area) wherein each of the plurality of second roofing shingles is composed of at least a second material wherein each of the plurality of second roofing shingles does not include a solar cell (first roofing shingle and second roofing shingles are on separate areas) wherein the plurality of second roofing shingles is installed on the third surface area of the third roof plane ([0079]).
However, Flanigan does not disclose that there are a plurality of second roofing shingles composed of at least a second material is different from the first material.
Flanigan discloses that different materials can be used to mimic roof shingles of different types such as stone, quartz, slate, granite, ceramics, concrete, porcelain, rigid shingle, clay, glass, onyx ([0056]).
Zhu discloses that a roofing structure on a building can comprise different types of roof tiles on the same roof and the types of tiles a roof can comprise include stone, asphalt, resin and sintered tiles ([0025]-different types of tiles laid on baseboard).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the plurality of first and second roofing shingles which would be in different sections of the roof and comprise non-PV tiles of Flanigan so that the plurality of first roofing shingle is form of different materials to mimic one of stone, asphalt, resin and sintered tiles and that the plurality second roofing shingles is formed of one of another material to mimic a roofing tiles which is different that the material which forms the plurality of first roofing shingles because Zhu discloses that such a design of using different tile materials on a single roof is possible and known to do so.
Matters relating to ornamentation or aesthetic design choice which only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (see 2144.04 I).
However, modified Flanigan does not disclose the following:
the plurality of photovoltaic modules installed on a substantial portion of the first surface area of the first roof plane and wherein a first portion of the plurality of the first roofing shingles installed on a remainder portion of the first surface area of the first roof plane, the remainder portion being adjacent to and surrounding the array,
a second portion of the plurality of first roofing shingles is installed on the entirety of the second surface area of the second roof plane
the plurality of second roofing shingles is installed on the entirety of the third surface area of the third roof plane
Flanigan discloses the claimed invention except for the arrangement of the plurality of photovoltaic modules, plurality of first roofing shingles, and plurality of second roofing shingles on the first, second and third roof planes as noted above.
Flanigan discloses that a non-regular pattern can be used ([0069]).
Flanigan further the surface area of the relevant roof section be saturated with solar cells to a point where about 70%-80% of the roof section is covered with solar cells or other PV elements ([0084]) to achieve the desired power ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the arrangement of PV to non-PV tiles on the first roof plane to have the claimed arrangement because it would allow for Flanigan to optimize the energy output of PV tiles based on the surface area of the relevant roof section exposure to sunlight.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the arrangements of the plurality of first roofing shingles, and plurality of second roofing shingles on the second and third roof planes of Flanigan, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, modified Flanigan does not disclose that the roofing module underlying the photovoltaic, first roofing shingles, and second roofing shingles are overlapped and attached to the roof deck by a fastener through a head lap portion.
Grieco discloses that the roofing module includes a head lap portion (head lap portion shown of attachment panel, see Figs. 4 and 14 which shows head lap portions which are overlapped with bottom of adjacent tile) which is how the tiles are attached to the roof through nails ([0038], see Fig. 4, reinforced nail zone 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify the roof module of the photovoltaic module and first and second roofing shingle of Flanigan by using the roofing module as disclosed by Grieco because Grieco discloses an effective structure for a roof module.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Flannigan discloses wherein an appearance of the plurality of first roofing shingles aesthetically matches an appearance of the plurality of photovoltaic modules when viewed from a vantage point located at a ground level of a structure comprising the roof deck, and wherein an appearance of the plurality of second roofing shingles aesthetically matches the appearance of plurality of first roofing shingles and the appearance of the plurality of photovoltaic modules when viewed from the vantage point (note that an appearance of a tile roof which is considered aesthetically matching).
Matters relating to ornamentation or aesthetic design choice which only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (see 2144.04 I).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 13, modified Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Flanigan does not disclose the specifics on the roof tile structure other than it has a head lap portion (See modification of Grieco).
Grieco discloses that roofing tiles can comprise multiple layers which includes a first layer is a polymer layer (see Fig. 6, 18 and layer 20 is an attachment panel and materials which can form layers of the attachment panel include polymers [0012][0033][0033]-[0035], 20 is first layer) and a second layer (22 is second layer, include glass reinforced polymers [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify the roof module structure of modified Flanigan by using the roofing module with two layer as disclosed by Grieco because Grieco discloses an effective structure for a roof module.
Modified Flanigan will include the first layer (see modification above with Grieco ) being textured since Flanigan discloses a pattern structure to mimic silicon elements on the first layer ([0046]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Grieco discloses that the first layer is a continuous fiber thermoplastic layer ([0033]).
Note that the first and second layer of modified Flanigan are thin flexible layers which instantly read on the tape structure.
Regarding claim 5, modified Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Flanigan discloses wherein each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes at least one solar cell (224), an encapsulant encapsulating the at least one solar cell (226), wherein the encapsulant of the photovoltaic module includes a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface of the encapsulant of the photovoltaic module, a front sheet (230), wherein the front sheet includes a first surface, and a second surface opposite the first surface of the front sheet, wherein the second surface of the front sheet is juxtaposed with the first surface of the encapsulant, and a backsheet (228/230) juxtaposed with the second surface of the encapsulant of the photovoltaic module (see Fig. 2j and 2k [0071]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Flannigan discloses wherein the first roof plane is located at a first elevation, wherein the first elevation is measured relative to a ground level of a structure comprising the roof deck, and wherein the second roof plane is located at a second elevation, wherein the second elevation is measured relative to the ground level, and wherein the first elevation is different than the second elevation (see Figure below).
Regarding claim 15, Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Flannigan discloses wherein the first roof plane (a and b, see Fig below) includes a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, wherein the second roof plane (a’ and b’, see Fig below) includes a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge of the second roof plane, wherein the first edge of the first roof plane is substantially parallel with the first edge of the second roof plane, and wherein the second edge of the first roof plane is substantially parallel with the second edge of the second roof plane (see Figure below).
Regarding claim 16, Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Flannigan discloses wherein the first roof plane (c and d, see Fig below)includes a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, wherein the second roof plane (a’ and b’, see Fig below) includes a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge of the second roof plane, wherein the first edge of the first roof plane is oblique relative to the first edge of the second roof plane, and wherein the second edge of the first roof plane is oblique relative to the second edge of the second roof plane (See Figure below).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanigan (US 2018/0115275 A1) in view of Zhu (CN105421819A, Machine Translation) in view of Grieco (US 2013/0014455 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 12-16 and 20 above and in further view of Birch (US 2022/0200517 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Flanigan does not disclose that the front sheet is textured.
Birch discloses that the front sheet of a PV-tile can have a texture to provide a desired aesthetic effect ([0045]-[0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Flanigan to provide a texture on the front sheet as disclosed by Birch because it will allow for the PV-tile to provide a desired aesthetic appearance for the roof.
Regarding claim 7, modified Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Grieco discloses that roofing tiles can comprise multiple layers which includes a first layer is a polymer layer (see Fig. 6, 18 and layer 20 is an attachment panel and materials which can form layers of the attachment panel include polymers [0012][0033][0033]-[0035], 20 is first layer) and a second layer (22 is second layer, include glass reinforced polymers [0033]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanigan (US 2018/0115275 A1) in view of Zhu (CN105421819A, Machine Translation) in view of Grieco (US 2013/0014455 A1) in view of Birch (US 2022/0200517 A1) as applied to claims 6 and 7 above and in further view of Van Duijnhoven (US 2021/0013351 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Nakamura discloses that a thermoplastic sheet is preferably chosen for the first and second layer (50, includes 51-53) and has weatherability (see pg. 10 base sheet material section).
Van Duijnhoven discloses a thermoplastic weatherable sheet can comprise a thermoplastic polyolefin ([0029][0030]) and using this material improves weatherability ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the weatherable sheet of modified Flannigan to use a thermoplastic polyolefin as disclosed by Van Duijnhoven because it increases the weatherability which is a desired feature of Nakamura.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanigan (US 2018/0115275 A1) in view of Zhu (CN105421819A, Machine Translation) in view of Grieco (US 2013/0014455 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 12-16 and 20 above and in further view of Nakamura (JP 2002276091 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, modified Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Flanigan discloses that the non-PV tiles can comprise a variety of materials (see modification with Zhu above).
However, Flanigan does not disclose that the first and second materials are one of asphalt, metal, polymer or rubber.
Nakamura discloses that a variety of materials can be used to mimic different colors including ceramics (asphalt material), metals (aluminum), and/or polymer binders.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to modify the first and second material to mimic different types of tiles of modified Flanigan so that the first and second material comprise those disclosed by Nakamura in order to mimic the different types of colors and thus different types of roof tiles.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanigan (US 2018/0115275 A1) in view of Zhu (CN105421819A, Machine Translation) in view of Grieco (US 2013/0014455 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 12-16 and 20 above and in further view of Matsumoto (JP2006-177077, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Flanigan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Flanigan does not disclose:
wherein the first layer has a thickness of 25 to 100 mils
wherein the second layer has a thickness of 25 to 200 mils
Matsumoto discloses that the thickness of layers within a roof tile can be optimized according to the desired strength and rigidity ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the thickness of the above layers of modified Flanigan to be within the claimed range because as disclosed by Matsumoto it will allow for one to achieve the desired strength and rigidity.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanigan (US 2018/0115275 A1) in view of Grieco (US 2013/0014455 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Flanigan discloses a system, comprising (see Fig. 6 and Fig. 2A [0024] [0055]-[0058][0079]):
a roof deck (see Fig. 6),
wherein the roof deck includes a plurality of sloped roof planes (See Fig. 6, opposing sides will also have sloped planes),
wherein the plurality of sloped roof planes includes
a first roof plane (see plane which has lowest height either pitched portion or flat portion above windows or portion on opposing side),
wherein the first roof plane includes a first surface area, and
a second roof plane (other plane shown in Fig. 6 above garage portion),
wherein the second roof plane includes a second surface area,
wherein the second roof plane is different from the first roof plane, and
a third roof plane (portion on opposing side or plane which has lowest height either pitched portion or flat portion above windows),
wherein the third roof plane includes a third surface area (plane portion on opposing side or plane which has lowest height either pitched portion or flat portion above windows),
wherein the third roof plane is different from the first roof plane and the second roof plane;
a plurality of photovoltaic modules installed on the first surface area of the first roof plane ([0079] PV-tiles); wherein each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes a plurality of solar cells (see Fig. 2J, 224 [0071] solar cells shown as being part of 206);
a plurality of first roofing shingles ([0079] non-PV tiles) wherein each of the plurality of first roofing shingles does not include a solar cell, wherein each of the plurality of first roofing shingles is composed of at least a first material (inherently made of a material), wherein the plurality of first roofing shingles is installed on the second surface area of the second roof plane ([0079]);
and a plurality of second roofing shingles (PV-tiles [0079]), wherein each of the plurality of second roofing shingles is composed of at least a second material (material which makes solar cell), wherein the second material is different from the first material, and wherein the plurality of second roofing shingles is installed on the third surface area of the third roof plane ([0079]).
However, modified Flanigan does not disclose the following:
the plurality of photovoltaic modules installed on a substantial portion of the first surface area of the first roof plane and wherein a first portion of the plurality of the first roofing shingles installed on a remainder portion of the first surface area of the first roof plane, the remainder portion being adjacent to and surrounding the array
the plurality of second roofing shingles is installed on the entirety of the second surface area of the second roof plane
Flanigan discloses the claimed invention except for the arrangement of the plurality of photovoltaic modules, plurality of first roofing shingles, and plurality of second roofing shingles on the first and second roof planes.
Flanigan discloses that a non-regular pattern can be used ([0069]).
Flanigan further the surface area of the relevant roof section be saturated with solar cells to a point where about 70%-80% of the roof section is covered with solar cells or other PV elements ([0084]) to achieve the desired power ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the arrangement of PV to non-PV tiles on the first roof plane to have the claimed arrangement because it would allow for Flanigan to optimize the energy output of PV tiles based on the surface area of the relevant roof section exposure to sunlight.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the arrangements of the plurality of second roofing on the second roof planes of Flanigan, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
However, modified Flanigan does not disclose that the roofing module underlying the photovoltaic, first roofing shingles, and second roofing shingles are overlapped and attached to the roof deck by a fastener through a head lap portion.
Grieco discloses that the roofing module includes a head lap portion (head lap portion shown of attachment panel, see Figs. 4 and 14 which shows head lap portions which are overlapped with bottom of adjacent tile) which is how the tiles are attached to the roof through nails ([0038], see Fig. 4, reinforced nail zone 34).
PNG
media_image2.png
423
992
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify the roof module of the photovoltaic module and first and second roofing shingle of Flanigan by using the roofing module as disclosed by Grieco because Grieco discloses an effective structure for a roof module.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Flanigan, Zhu, Grieco, or any cited reference to provide a first roof plane with both an array of photovoltaic modules and a remainder portion covered by another type of roofing shingles of a first material.
Flanigan discloses that a non-regular pattern can be used ([0069]). Flanigan further the surface area of the relevant roof section be saturated with solar cells to a point where about 70%-80% of the roof section is covered with solar cells or other PV elements ([0084]) to achieve the desired power ([0085]). A non-regular pattern can include an island of one type of tile with a perimeter of another type of tile. Furthermore, a section is a portion which can be any shape; therefore a surface area of a relevant portion can include a center of roof, since a center of a roof is likely to achieve more sunlight exposure.
Applicant further argues that Flanigan's tiles are not designed to be fastened through a headlap portion as in Grieco, and Grieco's headlap portion is part of the attachment panel for solar shingles, not a BIPV tile.
Greico and Flannigan both disclose roofing tiles wherein a portion of a roofing tile includes a PV panel. Flanigan does not disclose any method of attachment to the roof underlying the tiles. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Greico for a method of attachment.
Applicant argues that even if Grieco were considered analogous, combining its nail-through-headlap technique with Flanigan would render Flanigan's modules inoperable.
The headlap portion of Greico does not include any electrical elements similar to the perimeter of the tiles surrounding the PV panels of Flanigan.
Applicant further argues that nowhere does Flanigan teach or suggest that the non-PV tiles (first roofing shingles) and other non-PV tiles (second roofing shingles) are
made of different materials and that Flanigan discloses the system is designed to use the same or similar materials for all tiles to achieve visual uniformity.
Flanigan discloses that the when PV and non-PV tiles are dispersed visual uniformity can be desired.
Zhu provides a teaching that a roofing structure on a building can comprise different types of roof tiles on the same roof and the types of tiles a roof can comprise include stone, asphalt, resin and sintered tiles ([0025]-different types of tiles laid on baseboard).
Nakamura discloses how to simulate different looks for different tiles by using different materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the plurality of first and second roofing shingles which would be in different sections of the roof and comprise non-PV tiles of Flanigan so that the plurality of first roofing shingle is form of different materials to mimic one of stone, asphalt, resin and sintered tiles and that the plurality second roofing shingles is formed of one of another material to mimic a roofing tiles which is different that the material which forms the plurality of first roofing shingles because Zhu discloses that such a design of using different tile materials on a single roof is possible and known to do so.
Matters relating to ornamentation or aesthetic design choice which only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (see 2144.04 I).
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 DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726