DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A (claims 1-10) in the reply on 06/27/2016 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAUST (US 20090215304 A1) in view of MIGLIANI (How do Solar Tiles Work?).
Regarding claim 1, FAUST teaches a photovoltaic roof tile (see the photovoltaic roof tile, see Figs. 1-9), comprising:
a protective cover (see the protective cover in Fig. 9 attached below);
a backsheet (see the backsheet in Fig. 9 attached below);
a plurality of solar cells disposed between the protective cover and the backsheet (see the plurality of solar cells between the protective cover and the backsheet in Fig. 9 attached below), the plurality of solar cells comprising a first electrical terminal (see the positive solar cell lead wire 50 in Fig. 3) proximate a first end (see the first end) of the photovoltaic roof tile and a second electrical terminal (see the negative solar cell lead wire 60 in Fig. 3) proximate a second end (see the second end) of the photovoltaic roof tile (see Figs. 1-9).
a first junction box (see the male interconnect plug 10, which contains electrical junctions in a box) (see Figs. 1-9), the first junction box comprising: a first cable terminal (see the first cable terminal in Figs. 3, 1B attached below) comprising a first end (see the first end in Figs. 3, 1B attached below) electrically coupled to the first electrical terminal and a second end (see the second end in Figs. 3, 1B attached below) electrically coupled to a first electrical lead (see the first electrical lead in Figs. 3, 1B attached below) and a second electrical lead (see the second electrical lead in Figs. 1-9) configured to receive electrical energy in parallel from an adjacent photovoltaic roof tile (see Figs. 3, 1B attached below); a second cable terminal (see the second cable terminal in Figs. 3, 1B attached below); and a diode (see the shunting or bypass diode 200) electrically coupling the first cable terminal to the second cable terminal (see Figs. 3, 1B attached below);
a second junction box (see the female interconnect socket 20, which contains electrical junctions in a box) (see Figs. 1-9), the second junction box comprising a third cable terminal (see the third cable terminal in Figs. 3, 1B attached below) electrically coupled to the second electrical terminal (see Figs. 1-9) and configured to receive electrical energy generated by the plurality of solar cells (see Figs. 1-9); and
a bypass cable (see the bypass wire 40) comprising a first cable end (see the first cable end in Fig. 9 attached below) at the second cable terminal and a second cable end at the third cable terminal.
Regarding the claimed “a first junction box adhered to a roof-facing surface of the backsheet” and “a second junction box adhered to the roof-facing surface of the backsheet”, FAUST teaches a first junction box and a second junction box (see the male interconnect plug 10 and the female interconnect socket 20; see the discussion above), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “adhered to a roof-facing surface of the backsheet”. However, MIGLIANI disclose solar roof tiles, wherein the both wirings are adhered to the roof-facing surface of the backsheet of the solar roof tile (see the figure in P1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the male interconnect plug and the female interconnect socket so as to be adhered to the roof-facing surface of the backsheet in FAUST as taught by MIGLIANI, because the change in configuration of an element is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
500
1000
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
FAUST teaches the photovoltaic roof tile is a first photovoltaic roof tile (see the first photovoltaic roof tile in Fig. 7 attached below) and the adjacent photovoltaic roof tile is a second photovoltaic roof tile (see the second photovoltaic roof tile in Fig. 7 attached below), wherein the second photovoltaic roof tile is mechanically coupled to the first photovoltaic roof tile and electrically coupled to the first photovoltaic roof tile using the first and second electrical leads (see Fig. 7 attached below and the rejection of claim 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
544
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
FAUST teaches the diode is configured to allow electrical energy received at the first cable terminal to flow across the diode and into the second cable terminal when a predetermined threshold voltage is reached at the first cable terminal ([0030] The bypass wire 40 provides a path for current to shunt around the PV roofing tile 110 in the event of a PV roofing tile 110 impedance upsurge, caused by either a PV roofing tile 110 failure or shade on the tile; The shunting or bypass diode 200 necessarily has its predetermined threshold voltage and has the claimed function).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 4.
FAUST teaches the predetermined threshold voltage is greater than a normal operating voltage of the photovoltaic roof tile and the diode is configured to prevent electrical arcing when one or more circuits associated with the plurality of solar cells is degraded ([0030] The bypass wire 40 provides a path for current to shunt around the PV roofing tile 110 in the event of a PV roofing tile 110 impedance upsurge, caused by either a PV roofing tile 110 failure or shade on the tile; The shunting or bypass diode 200 necessarily has its predetermined threshold voltage and has the claimed function).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 4.
FAUST teaches the first cable terminal is separate and distinct from the second cable terminal (see the rejection of claim 1 and Figs. 3, 1B attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
FAUST teaches the diode directs electrical energy received at the first cable terminal to the second cable terminal and across the bypass cable when an electrical voltage at the first cable terminal exceeds a predetermined threshold value ([0030] The bypass wire 40 provides a path for current to shunt around the PV roofing tile 110 in the event of a PV roofing tile 110 impedance upsurge, caused by either a PV roofing tile 110 failure or shade on the tile; The shunting or bypass diode 200 necessarily has its predetermined threshold voltage and has the claimed function).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
FAUST teaches the first cable terminal defines a cut-out region that accommodates positioning the diode between the first and second cable terminals (see Figs. 3, 1B attached in the rejection of claim 1; The first cable terminal has a cut-out region that installs the shunting or bypass diode 200 between the first and second cable terminals).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAUST (US 20090215304 A1) in view of MIGLIANI (How do Solar Tiles Work?) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of YANG (US 20190260332 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the plurality of solar cells comprises a first edge busbar positioned near an edge of a first surface and a second edge busbar positioned near an opposite edge of a second surface, and wherein the plurality of solar cells are arranged in such a way that the first edge busbar of a first solar cell overlaps the second edge busbar of an adjacent solar cell, thereby resulting in the plurality of solar cells forming a serially coupled string”, FAUST teaches the plurality of solar cells in the photovoltaic roof tile (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed feature. However, YANG discloses a photovoltaic roof tile, wherein the photovoltaic roof tile can include a plurality of photovoltaic structures positioned between a front cover and a back cover, and YANG teaches the plurality of photovoltaic structures comprises a first edge busbar positioned near an edge of a first surface and a second edge busbar positioned near an opposite edge of a second surface, and wherein the plurality of photovoltaic structures are arranged in such a way that the first edge busbar of a first photovoltaic structure overlaps the second edge busbar of an adjacent photovoltaic structure, thereby resulting in the plurality of photovoltaic structures forming a serially coupled string (see Figs. 5A, 5B). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the plurality of photovoltaic structures comprising a first edge busbar positioned near an edge of a first surface and a second edge busbar positioned near an opposite edge of a second surface, and arranged in such a way that the first edge busbar of a first photovoltaic structure overlaps the second edge busbar of an adjacent photovoltaic structure, thereby resulting in the plurality of photovoltaic structures forming a serially coupled string in the device of FAUST as taught by YANG, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144) and because the change in configuration of elements is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAUST (US 20090215304 A1) in view of MIGLIANI (How do Solar Tiles Work?) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of WOLFE (CA 2480366).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Regarding the claimed “a foot configured to support at least a portion of a weight of the photovoltaic roof tile upon a roof top, wherein the foot comprises cable management features configured to secure the first and second leads to the photovoltaic roof tile”, FAUST teaches the photovoltaic roof tile upon a roof top ([0003] This invention is a low profile electrical interconnect system with an integrated shunting or bypass diode that enables an aesthetic integrated solar tile system to be easily installed on sloped roofs) and the bypass cable is routed on the backsheet (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed feature. However, WOLFE discloses a solar roofing slate, wherein Fig. 8 shows that the solar roofing slate comprises a rib 27 (corresponding to the claimed “foot”) attached at the top edge portion of the solar roofing slate, which supports at least a portion of a weight of the solar roofing slate upon a roof top, and the rib incorporates an interconnection projection 28 for engaging within a corresponding recess in the end of the rib of an adjacent element in order to lock the elements together (The both recesses in both ends of the rib corresponds to the claimed “cable management features”) (see Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the rib attached at the top edge portion of the photovoltaic roof tile, which supports at least a portion of a weight of the photovoltaic roof tile upon a roof top in FAUST in view of WOLFE, because the rib provides the recesses on both ends, which lock the interconnection projection elements together. Modified FAUST teaches the foot (see the rib) comprises cable management features (see the recesses on both ends) configured to secure the first and second leads to the photovoltaic roof tile (The recesses have this function).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAUST (US 20090215304 A1) in view of MIGLIANI (How do Solar Tiles Work?) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of ALIM (Improving performance of solar roof tiles by incorporating phase change material).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Regarding the claimed “a foot configured to support at least a portion of a weight of the photovoltaic roof tile upon a roof top, wherein the bypass cable is routed between a portion of the foot and the backsheet”, FAUST teaches the photovoltaic roof tile upon a roof top ([0003] This invention is a low profile electrical interconnect system with an integrated shunting or bypass diode that enables an aesthetic integrated solar tile system to be easily installed on sloped roofs) and the bypass cable is routed on the backsheet (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed feature. However, ALIM discloses solar roof tiles, wherein a foot attached at the top edge portion of the solar roof tile supports at least a portion of a weight of the solar roof tile upon a roof top and the foot provides a proper angle of the solar roof tile toward the Sun (see Fig. 3 attached below). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the foot attached at the top edge portion of the photovoltaic roof tile, which supports at least a portion of a weight of the photovoltaic roof tile upon a roof top in FAUST in view of ALIM, because the foot provides a proper angle of the solar roof tile toward the Sun. Modified FAUST teaches the bypass cable is routed between a portion of the foot and the backsheet (In the combination, the bypass wire 40 is routed between a portion of the foot and the backsheet of the photovoltaic roof tile).
PNG
media_image4.png
386
572
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights