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 8th, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(a) rejection of claim 10 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections over Okawa et al. are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okawa et al. (US 2018/0331652 A1) in view of Garvison et al. (US 2008/0245405 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Okawa et al. teaches a photovoltaic system (Figs. 15B-C), comprising:
a backsheet, wherein the backsheet comprises a first end and a second end opposite the first end(Fig. 15B, #1514 or #1508 & See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, below); an upper surface extending from the first end to the second end (Fig. 15B, #1514 or #1508 top surface) and a lower surface opposite the upper surface (Fig. 15B, #1514 or #1518 bottom surface);
a plurality of photovoltaic modules installed on the upper surface of the backsheet, wherein the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes at least a first photovoltaic module and second photovoltaic module (Fig. 1B, First and Second Subpanel & See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, below - Paragraph 0054);
wherein each of the photovoltaic modules includes: a first edge, and a second edge opposite the first edge (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, below);
at least one row of solar cells, wherein each row of solar cells extends between the first edge and the second edge (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, below);
wherein the first edge of each of the photovoltaic modules is positioned adjacent the first end of the backsheet, wherein the second edge of each of the photovoltaic modules is positioned adjacent the second end of the backsheet (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, below & See Figure 15B, where the edges of 1501-1502 are adjacent the first and second ends of the backsheet);
a first electrical connector wherein the first electrical connector electrically connects the first edges of the first and second photovoltaic modules (Figs. 1C & 3, electrical wire & Paragraph 0178).
Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C
PNG
media_image1.png
661
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Okinawa et al. discloses that the photovoltaic system may be monolithic, such that the first subpanel and the second subpanel are portions of the same monolithic structure (Fig. 8B & Paragraph 0088), but does not disclose that the photovoltaic system is configured to be installed on a roof deck such that the lower surface of the backsheet contacts the roof.
Garvison et al. teaches a configuration where a photovoltaic system is configured to be installed on a roof deck such that the lower surface of a backsheet contacts the roof (Fig. 4, #12 & Paragraph 0025-0027). Garvison et al. teaches that this configuration greatly simplifies the installation of solar cell circuits and reduces the amount of roofing material which would otherwise be needed in more conventional solar installations of this general type (Paragraph 0017). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt Garvison et al. backsheet configuration as the backsheet configuration of Okinawa et al. such that the lower surface of the backsheet contacts the roof for the advantages of having a configuration that greatly simplifies the installation of solar cell circuits and reduces the amount of roofing material which would otherwise be needed in more conventional solar installations of this general type.
In view of Claim 2, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Okawa et al. teaches that the backsheet comprises thermoplastic polyolefin (Fig. 15B, #1514 or #1508 & Paragraph 0068 – encapsulating layers can be thermoplastic polyolefin TPO). Garvison et al. teaches that the backsheet comprises TPO (Paragraph 0027).
In view of Claim 3, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Okawa et al. teaches that the at least one row of solar cells of each of the photovoltaic modules comprises one row of solar cells (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, above).
In view of Claim 4, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Okawa et al. teaches that the plurality of photovoltaic modules are laminated to the backsheet (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, above & Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claim 5, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Okawa et al. teaches that the first photovoltaic module is substantially parallel to the second photovoltaic module on the back sheet (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, above).
In view of Claim 6, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Okawa et al. teaches an adhesive, wherein the adhesive is on a surface of the backsheet opposite to a surface which the plurality of photovoltaic modules are installed (Paragraph 0124 or 0154).
In view of Claim 7, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Okawa et al. teaches the first electrical connector comprises a wire (Figure 3, electrical wire).
In view of Claim 8, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Okawa et al. teaches that the first electrical connector can be installed on the backsheet (Paragraph 0073 & 0091).
In view of Claim 9, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Okawa et al. teaches that the first electrical connector connects a positive end of the first photovoltaic module and a negative end of the second photovoltaic module (Paragraph 0178)
In view of Claim 10, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Okinawa et al. teaches a second electrical connector installed on the backsheet wherein the second electrical connector comprises a junction box (Paragraph 0060).
In view of Claim 11, Okawa et al. teaches a roofing system comprising a roof deck and a photovoltaic system installed above the roof deck (Fig. 25), wherein the photovoltaic system (Figs. 15B-C), comprising:
a backsheet, wherein the backsheet comprises a first end and a second end opposite the first end (Fig. 15B, #1514 or #1508 & See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, below);
a plurality of photovoltaic modules installed on the upper surface of the backsheet, wherein the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes at least a first photovoltaic module and second photovoltaic module (Fig. 1B, First and Second Subpanel & See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, below - Paragraph 0054);
wherein each of the photovoltaic modules includes: a first edge, and a second edge opposite the first edge (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, below);
at least one row of solar cells, wherein each row of solar cells extends between the first edge and the second edge (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, below);
wherein the first edge of each of the photovoltaic modules is positioned adjacent the first end of the backsheet, wherein the second edge of each of the photovoltaic modules is positioned adjacent the second end of the backsheet (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, below & See Figure 15B, where the edges of 1501-1502 are adjacent the first and second ends of the backsheet);
a first electrical connector wherein the first electrical connector electrically connects the first edges of the first and second photovoltaic modules (Figs. 1C & 3, electrical wire & Paragraph 0178).
Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C
PNG
media_image1.png
661
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Okinawa et al. discloses that the photovoltaic system may be monolithic, such that the first subpanel and the second subpanel are portions of the same monolithic structure (Fig. 8B & Paragraph 0088), but does not disclose that the photovoltaic system is configured to be installed on a roof deck such that the lower surface of the backsheet contacts the roof.
Garvison et al. teaches a configuration where a photovoltaic system is configured to be installed on a roof deck such that the lower surface of a backsheet contacts the roof (Fig. 4, #12 & Paragraph 0025-0027). Garvison et al. teaches that this configuration greatly simplifies the installation of solar cell circuits and reduces the amount of roofing material which would otherwise be needed in more conventional solar installations of this general type (Paragraph 0017). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt Garvison et al. backsheet configuration as the backsheet configuration of Okinawa et al. such that the lower surface of the backsheet contacts the roof for the advantages of having a configuration that greatly simplifies the installation of solar cell circuits and reduces the amount of roofing material which would otherwise be needed in more conventional solar installations of this general type.
In view of Claim 12, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Okawa et al. teaches that the backsheet comprises thermoplastic polyolefin (Fig. 15B, #1514 or #1508 & Paragraph 0068 – encapsulating layers can be thermoplastic polyolefin TPO).
In view of Claim 13, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Okawa et al. teaches that the at least one row of solar cells of each of the photovoltaic modules comprises one row of solar cells (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, above).
In view of Claim 14, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Okawa et al. teaches that the plurality of photovoltaic modules are laminated to the backsheet (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, above & Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claim 15, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Okawa et al. teaches that the first photovoltaic module is substantially parallel to the second photovoltaic module on the back sheet (See Annotated Okawa et al. Figure 15C, above).
In view of Claim 16, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Okawa et al. teaches an adhesive, wherein the adhesive is on a surface of the backsheet opposite to a surface which the plurality of photovoltaic modules are installed wherein the adhesive adheres the photovoltaic system to the roof deck (Paragraph 0154).
In view of Claim 17, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Okawa et al. teaches the first electrical connector comprises a wire (Figure 3, electrical wire).
In view of Claim 18, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Okawa et al. teaches that the first electrical connector can be installed on the backsheet (Paragraph 0073 & 0091).
In view of Claim 19, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Okawa et al. teaches that the first electrical connector connects a positive end of the first photovoltaic module and a negative end of the second photovoltaic module (Paragraph 0178)
In view of Claim 20, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Okinawa et al. teaches at least one fastener fastens the backsheet of the photovoltaic system to the roof deck (Paragraph 0060).
Claims 9 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Okawa et al. (US 2018/0331652 A1) in view of Garvison et al. (US 2008/0245405 A1) in view of Judkins et al. or as evidenced by Judkins et al. (US 2019/0312159 A1).
In view of Claims 9 and 19, Okawa et al. and Garvison et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing claims 9 and 19. Okawa et al. does not explicitly disclose the first electrical connector connects a positive end of the first photovoltaic module with a negative end of the second photovoltaic module.
Judkins et al. discloses an evidentiary reference in that electrical connectors in solar cell systems are connected together to form a solar cell circuit that include connections from one module to another with a “positive and negative connection” (Paragraph 0048). Accordingly, as evidenced by Judkins et al. the electrical connector of Okawa et al. would be connecting the positive connector of an adjacent PV module with a negative connector of an adjacent PV module to complete the solar cell circuit and generate usable power.
In the alternative, Judkins et al. teaches electrical connectors connecting first and second photovoltaic modules at first edges of first and second PV modules (Fig. 1, #142 connects 143 & 145 & Fig. 6, 642 can connect to an adjacent module), wherein Judkins et al. further discloses that connectors include positive and negative connections, while also disclosing that this connectors present an advantage in terms of cost (Paragraph 0048). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the connector of Judkins et al. that includes positive and negative ends for the advantages of utilizing a connector that presents an advantage in terms of cost.
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