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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Examiner’s Note To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets. 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. Claim (s) 1-20 is/ 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. Specifically, the limitation “ steep slope ” is not a limited term of art, nor has the Applicant specifically defined it. Since this limitation is undefined and unrestricted by the Applicant, the Examiner asserts that its scope is undefined. However, in the interest of compact prosecution and for the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret such limitation as any slope . 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 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. Claim (s) 1-2, 5, 13-14, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alovert (US PAT 10970991 ) in view of Clardy et al. (US 20220243474 hereinafter Clardy) and further in view of Brown et al. (US PAT 12087997 hereinafter Brown ) . Regarding claim 1 , Alovert teaches A roofing system comprising (fig 3) : a steep slope roof deck (fig 3) ; and a radar device installed on the steep slope roof deck (fig 3 [element 101 is an RF tag]) , wherein the radar device comprises: a radio wave transceiver , wherein the radio wave transceiver is configured to generate a generated radio wave, and wherein the radio wave transceiver is configured to receive a reflected radio wave that is reflected from an object detected by the generated radio wave (5:56-64 “ In some embodiments, there may be an Active Reader Passive Tag (ARPT) system that may include an active tag reader 102, which transmits reader RF signals and also receives return RF signals from a passive RF tag 101. ” ) ; a dielectric antenna in electrical communication with the radio wave transceiver, wherein the dielectric antenna is configured to emit the generated radio wave, wherein the dielectric antenna is configured to receive the reflected radio wave, and wherein the dielectric antenna is configured to transmit the reflected radio wave to the radio wave transceiver ; a computing device in electrical communication with the radio wave transceiver ( 4:51-52 “ computing device that continuously reads the RF tag 101 ” ) , wherein the computing device comprises: a processor, and a non-transitory storage configured to store software, wherein the software is configured to operate the computing device (8:62-65 “ a programmable logic, or such as a computing device, for example, a microcomputer or microcontroller that include a programmable microprocessor. ”) , and wherein the processor is configured to determine, based on the reflected radio wave received by the radio wave transceiver, at least one of a distance separating the radar device and the object, a direction in which the object is moving, a velocity of the object, or an identity of the object . Alovert does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Clardy teaches wherein the radio wave transceiver is configured to receive a reflected radio wave that is reflected from an object detected by the generated radio wave ( 0053 “ In one embodiment, a sensor 108 may comprise a radar sensor 108, such as a synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) ” ) a dielectric antenna in electrical communication with the radio wave transceiver, wherein the dielectric antenna is configured to emit the generated radio wave, wherein the dielectric antenna is configured to receive the reflected radio wave, and wherein the dielectric antenna is configured to transmit the reflected radio wave to the radio wave transceiver (0053 “ A sensor 108, in some embodiments, may comprise multiple single-chip frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar transceivers, ”) wherein the processor is configured to determine, based on the reflected radio wave received by the radio wave transceiver, at least one of a distance separating the radar device and the object, a direction in which the object is moving, a velocity of the object, or an identity of the object (0053 “ A sensor 108, in some embodiments, may comprise multiple single-chip frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar transceivers, or the like. A hardware controller device 110 and/or a backend module 122 may build a map, image, and/or other distance measurement of a rooftop 104 based on radar data ”) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Clardy with the teachings of Alovert . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensor accuracy ( Clardy 0053 ) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Clardy merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features . Since both Clardy and Alovert disclose similar sensor for a roof , one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Brown teaches a dielectric antenna (“ As shown in FIGS. 15A and 15B, a microstrip patch antenna 1501 may include a substantially flat, conductive antenna element 1503 and a dielectric substrate 1505. ”) . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Brown with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system operation ( Brown 23:55-65) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Brown merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular dielectric antenna . Since both Brown and the cited prior art disclose similar antennas on a roof , one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 2 , the cited prior art teaches The roofing system of claim 1, further comprising: a power supply configured to provide power to at least one of the radio wave transceiver and the computing device of the radar device, wherein the power supply comprises a photovoltaic shingle installed on the steep slope roof deck (Brown 25:4-7 “ Power source such as an energy storage device (e.g., a rechargeable battery or a capacitor), and the like. In some implementations, a power harvesting device is included; e.g., a photovoltaic cell or panel of cells. ”) . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Brown with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system operation ( Brown 23:55-65) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Brown merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular dielectric antenna . Since both Brown and the cited prior art disclose similar antennas on a roof , one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 5 , the cited prior art teaches The roofing system of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of roofing shingles installed on the steep slope roof deck, wherein the radar device is located on a surface of at least one roofing shingle of the plurality of roofing shingles ( Alovert fig 3) . Regarding claim 13 , claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore similarly rejected . Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore similarly rejected . Regarding claim 16 , the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13, wherein the radar device is located on a surface of or within a roofing shingle installed of the steep slope roof deck (Clardy fig 1) . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Clardy with the teachings of Alovert . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensor accuracy (Clardy 0053 ) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Clardy merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features . Since both Clardy and Alovert disclose similar sensors for a roof , one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 20 , the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13, wherein the radar device is located on a surface of or within a roofing shingle installed on the steep slope roof deck (Clardy fig 1) . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Clardy with the teachings of Alovert . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensor accuracy (Clardy 0053 ) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Clardy merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features . Since both Clardy and Alovert disclose similar sensors for a roof , one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Claim (s) 3-4, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alovert (US PAT 10970991 ) in view of Clardy et al. (US 20220243474 hereinafter Clardy) and further in view of Brown et al. (US PAT 12087997 hereinafter Brown ) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ziegler et al. (US 20190394448 hereinafter Ziegler) . Regarding claim 3 , the cited prior art teaches The roofing system of claim 1, further comprising: a ridge vent installed on a ridge of the steep slope roof deck, wherein the radar device is located on a surface on the ridge vent . The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ziegler teaches a ridge vent installed on a ridge of the steep slope roof deck, wherein the radar device is located on a surface on the ridge vent (0093 “ the structure 200 may include but are not limited to a roof vent, a chimney, a dormer, a skylight, a plumbing vent, a ridge vent .”). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Brown with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve coverage . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, there is a lack in criticality with regards to changes where a radar is placed alongside a roof. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and the mere changing of the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 4 , the cited prior art teaches The roofing system of claim 1, further comprising: a ridge vent installed on a ridge of the steep slope roof deck, wherein the radar device is located within an interior of the ridge vent . The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ziegler teaches a ridge vent installed on a ridge of the steep slope roof deck, wherein the radar device is located within an interior of the ridge vent (0093 “ the structure 200 may include but are not limited to a roof vent, a chimney, a dormer, a skylight, a plumbing vent, a ridge vent .”). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Brown with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve coverage . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, there is a lack in criticality with regards to changes where a radar is placed alongside a roof. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and the mere changing of the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 15 , claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore similarly rejected . Claim (s) 6-10, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alovert (US PAT 10970991 ) in view of Clardy et al. (US 20220243474 hereinafter Clardy) and further in view of Brown et al. (US PAT 12087997 hereinafter Brown ) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zemany et al. (US 20070024488 hereinafter Zemany ) . Regarding claim 6 , the cited prior art teaches The roofing system of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of roofing shingles installed on the steep slope roof deck ( Alovert fig 3) , wherein the radar device is located within an interior of at least one roofing shingle of the plurality of roofing shingles . The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zemany teaches a radar operating behind a barrier ( Abstract “ A CW radar (10) is used to detect motion of objects (22) behind a wall (20) by projecting a radar beam through the wall and by measuring the returns from the objects behind the wall ” ) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zemany with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system costs ( Zemany 0006) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zemany merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features to operate a radar from the interior of a barrier . As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and changing the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 7 , the cited prior art teaches The roofing system of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of roofing shingles installed on the steep slope roof deck ( Alovert fig 3) , wherein the radar device is located underneath at least one roofing shingle of the plurality of roofing shingles . The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zemany teaches a radar operating behind a barrier ( Abstract “ A CW radar (10) is used to detect motion of objects (22) behind a wall (20) by projecting a radar beam through the wall and by measuring the returns from the objects behind the wall ” ) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zemany with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system costs ( Zemany 0006) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zemany merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features to operate a radar from the interior of a barrier . As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and changing the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 8 , the cited prior art teaches The roofing system of claim 1, further comprising: an underlayment installed on a surface of the steep slope roof deck; and a plurality of roofing shingles installed on the underlayment ( Alovert 13:24-27 “ As used herein, the term “roofing material” includes, but is not limited to, shingles, waterproofing membranes, underlayment, tiles and photovoltaic panels. ”) , wherein the radar device is located on a surface of the underlayment . The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zemany teaches a radar operating behind a barrier ( Abstract “ A CW radar (10) is used to detect motion of objects (22) behind a wall (20) by projecting a radar beam through the wall and by measuring the returns from the objects behind the wall ” ) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zemany with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system costs ( Zemany 0006) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zemany merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features to operate a radar from the interior of a barrier . As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and changing the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 9 , the cited prior art teaches The roofing system of claim 1, further comprising: an underlayment installed on a surface of the steep slope roof deck ( Alovert 13:24-27 “ As used herein, the term “roofing material” includes, but is not limited to, shingles, waterproofing membranes, underlayment, tiles and photovoltaic panels. ”) ; and a plurality of roofing shingles installed on the underlayment ( Alovert fig 3) , wherein the radar device is located within an interior of the underlayment . The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zemany teaches a radar operating behind a barrier ( Abstract “ A CW radar (10) is used to detect motion of objects (22) behind a wall (20) by projecting a radar beam through the wall and by measuring the returns from the objects behind the wall ” ) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zemany with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system costs ( Zemany 0006) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zemany merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features to operate a radar from the interior of a barrier . As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and changing the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 10 , the cited prior art teaches The roofing system of claim 1, further comprising: an underlayment installed on a surface of the steep slope roof deck ( Alovert 13:24-27 “As used herein, the term “roofing material” includes, but is not limited to, shingles, waterproofing membranes, underlayment, tiles and photovoltaic panels.”) ; and a plurality of roofing shingles installed on the underlayment ( Alovert fig 3) , wherein the radar device is located under the underlayment between the underlayment and the surface of the steep slope roof deck (Clardy fig 1) . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Clardy with the teachings of Alovert . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensor accuracy (Clardy 0053 ) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Clardy merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensor features . Since both Clardy and Alovert disclose similar sensor for a roof , one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zemany teaches a radar operating behind a barrier ( Abstract “ A CW radar (10) is used to detect motion of objects (22) behind a wall (20) by projecting a radar beam through the wall and by measuring the returns from the objects behind the wall ” ) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zemany with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system costs ( Zemany 0006) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zemany merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features to operate a radar from the interior of a barrier . As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and changing the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 17 , the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13, wherein the radar device is located on a surface of or within an underlayment installed on the steep slope roof deck . The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zemany teaches a radar operating behind a barrier ( Abstract “ A CW radar (10) is used to detect motion of objects (22) behind a wall (20) by projecting a radar beam through the wall and by measuring the returns from the objects behind the wall ” ) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zemany with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system costs ( Zemany 0006) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zemany merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features to operate a radar from the interior of a barrier . As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and changing the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 18 , the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13, wherein the radar device is located within a wireway of a photovoltaic shingle installed on the steep slope roof deck . The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zemany teaches a radar operating behind a barrier ( Abstract “ A CW radar (10) is used to detect motion of objects (22) behind a wall (20) by projecting a radar beam through the wall and by measuring the returns from the objects behind the wall ” ) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zemany with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system costs ( Zemany 0006) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zemany merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features to operate a radar from the interior of a barrier . As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and changing the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 19 , the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13, wherein the radar device is located on a surface of or within a backsheet of a photovoltaic shingle installed on the steep slope roof deck. The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zemany teaches a radar operating behind a barrier ( Abstract “ A CW radar (10) is used to detect motion of objects (22) behind a wall (20) by projecting a radar beam through the wall and by measuring the returns from the objects behind the wall ” ) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zemany with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system costs ( Zemany 0006) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zemany merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features to operate a radar from the interior of a barrier . As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and changing the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Claim (s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alovert (US PAT 10970991 ) in view of Clardy et al. (US 20220243474 hereinafter Clardy) and further in view of Brown et al. (US PAT 12087997 hereinafter Brown ) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bunea et al. (US 20240120876 hereinafter Bunea ) in view of Zemany et al. (US 20070024488 hereinafter Zemany ) . Regarding claim 11 , the cited prior art teaches The roofing system of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of photovoltaic shingles installed on the steep slope roof deck (Brown 25:6-7 “ a power harvesting device is included; e.g., a photovoltaic cell or panel of cells ”) , wherein each of the photovoltaic shingles comprises a photovoltaic layer including at least one solar cell, and a backsheet , wherein the photovoltaic layer is located above the backsheet , and wherein the radar device is located within the backsheet . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Brown with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system operation ( Brown 23:55-65) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Brown merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular dielectric antenna . Since both Brown and the cited prior art disclose similar antennas on a roof , one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Bunea teaches wherein each of the photovoltaic shingles comprises a photovoltaic layer including at least one solar cell, and a backsheet , wherein the photovoltaic layer is located above the backsheet (0006 “ each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes at least one solar cell, an encapsulant encapsulating the at least one solar cell . . . the frontsheet is juxtaposed with the first surface of the encapsulant, and a backsheet juxtaposed with the second surface of the encapsulant of the photovoltaic module. ”) , and wherein the radar device is located within the backsheet . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bunea with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously use photovoltaic system on building roofs ( Bunea 0003 ) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bunea merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular photovoltaic system . Since both Bunea and the cited prior art disclose similar photovoltaic system s , one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zemany teaches a radar operating behind a barrier ( Abstract “ A CW radar (10) is used to detect motion of objects (22) behind a wall (20) by projecting a radar beam through the wall and by measuring the returns from the objects behind the wall ” ) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zemany with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system costs ( Zemany 0006) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zemany merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features to operate a radar from the interior of a barrier . As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and changing the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 12 , the cited prior art teaches The roofing system of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of photovoltaic shingles installed on the steep slope roof deck (Brown 25:6-7 “ a power harvesting device is included; e.g., a photovoltaic cell or panel of cells ”) , wherein each of the photovoltaic shingles comprises a photovoltaic layer including at least one solar cell, and a backsheet , wherein the photovoltaic layer is located above the backsheet , and wherein the radar device is located on a surface of the backsheet . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Brown with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system operation ( Brown 23:55-65) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Brown merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular dielectric antenna . Since both Brown and the cited prior art disclose similar antennas on a roof , one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Bunea teaches wherein each of the photovoltaic shingles comprises a photovoltaic layer including at least one solar cell, and a backsheet , wherein the photovoltaic layer is located above the backsheet (0006 “ each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes at least one solar cell, an encapsulant encapsulating the at least one solar cell . . . the frontsheet is juxtaposed with the first surface of the encapsulant, and a backsheet juxtaposed with the second surface of the encapsulant of the photovoltaic module. ”) , and wherein the radar device is located on a surface of the backsheet . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bunea with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously use photovoltaic system on building roofs ( Bunea 0003 ) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bunea merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular photovoltaic system . Since both Bunea and the cited prior art disclose similar photovoltaic system s , one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zemany teaches a radar operating behind a barrier ( Abstract “ A CW radar (10) is used to detect motion of objects (22) behind a wall (20) by projecting a radar beam through the wall and by measuring the returns from the objects behind the wall ” ) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zemany with the teachings of the cited prior art . One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system costs ( Zemany 0006) . Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zemany merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features to operate a radar from the interior of a barrier . As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements and changing the location of a radar along a roof has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure: Griffin (US PAT 7651250 ) discloses “ A retractable lighting apparatus for the upper surface of a roof of a vehicle includes at least one lighting member adapted to be raised or lowered relative to the upper surface of the roof, and a device for effecting the raising and lowering of the lighting apparatus ” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3896 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8am-5pm . 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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753 . 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648 /William Kelleher/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648