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 12/23/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous objection to the abstract is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous art rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New analysis follows.
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, 6-9, 12, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0224303 to Herwig.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-9, Herwig teaches a photovoltaic tile (¶0125-0161) comprising
A tile base 1 (Fig. 1) comprising a base plate 107 (¶0017), a raising portion 12, a splicing area (region of overlap of 33, 12 such as shown in Fig. 4) and a first connecting part 20 (¶0020), wherein the base plate has a first surface (facing into page in Fig. 1) and a second surface 14 opposite each other, the tile base has a second side (adjacent edge 111) and a first side opposite to each other along a first direction (roughly up-down in Fig. 1), the splicing area is close to the second side (MPEP §2125), the raising portion is located on the second surface and extends along the first direction (¶0021), and the raising portion has a second end (near 111) and a first end opposite to each other along the first direction, the first end and the second end are respectively adjacent to the first side and the second side
A photovoltaic component (Fig. 3) comprising a photovoltaic panel 3 (¶0097, 0098) and a second connecting part 35 (Figs. 4, 5, ¶0099-0102), wherein the photovoltaic panel is arranged on the raising portion 12 and is detachably connected to the tile base 1 through the cooperation between the first connecting part 20 and the second connecting part (¶0100-0120 describe the locking of elements 35 and 20, etc. together; a skilled artisan would understand that the locking may be reversed).
Marked-up Fig. 2 below, which is Fig. 1 viewed from the edge 111, illustrates a height of the second end of the raising portion 12 relative to the second surface, and a thickness of the tile base 1 at the first side (the thickness of the base at the side adjacent 111 is the same as the thickness of the base at the first side). As illustrated, the height (which does not include the thickness of the material of the tile base 1) and the thickness are not equivalent, they are very close in size, to such a degree that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand a tile in which the two parameters were equivalent to have similar properties.
[AltContent: textbox (angle)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
234
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”. MPEP §2144.05.I.
Additionally, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the two parameters to ensure that water can be effectively discharged (¶0017) and so that the photovoltaic component can be effectively cooled (¶0021).
A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination 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. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02).
Per claim 2, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 1. In a reasonable interpretation, the first connecting part includes elements 18 and 20, and therefore comprises a snap-in slot 20 and an installation hole 18 opposite to each other (the two are laterally displaced from each other at a corner of the raising portion 12, Figs. 4, 5), wherein the snap-in slot is located on the base plate 107 (the slot 20 is vertically raised in a thickness direction with respect to the level of base plate 107) and adjacent to a first end of the raising portion 12. Similarly, in a reasonable interpretation, the second connecting part includes elements 35 and 181, and therefore comprises a snap-in piece 35 and a connector 181 opposite to each other, wherein the snap-in piece is clamped with the snap-in slot, and the connector is connected with the installation hole (¶0115-0121).
Per claim 4, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 1. The tile base 1 further comprises an installation portion 18 located on the second side of the tile base for overlapping with a beam used for installing the photovoltaic tile (the limitation “for overlapping with a beam used for installing the photovoltaic tile” is an intended use limitation; Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115; the text references a “substructure” which interacts with installation portion 18 in ¶0020, 0092-0094, and therefore a skilled artisan would understand the installation portion to be capable of overlapping with a beam).
Per claim 6, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 1. The designation of the first and second sides of the tile base, and the first and second ends of the raising portion, are arbitrary, as the tile base is mostly symmetrical in the up-down dimension of Fig. 1. Therefore, it is valid to switch the designations of the first and second sides and first and second ends so that the plurality of cable escape grooves 101 are on the first side.
Per claim 7, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 1. The raising portion 12 has a raising surface 121 and a fixing surface 120 (Fig. 1, ¶0018, 0121), and there is a default angle between the raising surface and the fixing surface (labeled in Marked-up Fig. 2 above), wherein the raising portion is fixedly connected to the second surface 14 through the fixing surface.
Per claim 8, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 1. The tile base 1 further comprises a first drainage groove 10 located on one side of the tile base and extending along the first direction (Fig. 1, ¶0017), wherein the first drainage groove has an opening at a raising end away from the photovoltaic panel 3 (Fig. 4, ¶0024).
Per claim 9, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 1. The tile base 1 further comprises a second drainage groove (sketched over in grey in Marked-up Fig. 4 below) located on the second surface 14 of the tile base, wherein the second drainage groove extends along a second direction (the contour of the base provides a component of the drainage groove along a left-right direction), and has an opening toward the outside of the tile base along the second direction (the opening of the second drainage groove is offset from the center of the tile base along the left-right direction, and extends in width along the left-right direction).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second drainage groove)][AltContent: textbox (Second drainage groove opening)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
436
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12, 13, 15, and 17-20, Herwig teaches a sloped photovoltaic roof comprising a plurality of photovoltaic tiles (¶0007, 0010, 0017, 0019, 0020), wherein each photovoltaic tile comprises (¶0125-0161)
A tile base 1 (Fig. 1) comprising a base plate 107 (¶0017), a raising portion 12, a splicing area (region of overlap of 33, 12 such as shown in Fig. 4) and a first connecting part 20 (¶0020), wherein the base plate has a first surface (facing into page in Fig. 1) and a second surface 14 opposite each other, the tile base has a second side (adjacent edge 111) and a first side opposite to each other along a first direction (roughly up-down in Fig. 1), the splicing area is close to the second side (MPEP §2125), the raising portion is located on the second surface and extends along the first direction (¶0021), and the raising portion has a second end (near 111) and a first end opposite to each other along the first direction, the first end and the second end are respectively adjacent to the first side and the second side
A photovoltaic component (Fig. 3) comprising a photovoltaic panel 3 (¶0097, 0098) and a second connecting part 35 (Figs. 4, 5, ¶0099-0102), wherein the photovoltaic panel is arranged on the raising portion 12 and is detachably connected to the tile base 1 through the cooperation between the first connecting part 20 and the second connecting part (¶0100-0120 describe the locking of elements 35 and 20, etc. together; a skilled artisan would understand that the locking may be reversed).
Marked-up Fig. 2 above, which is Fig. 1 viewed from the edge 111, illustrates a height of the second end of the raising portion 12 relative to the second surface, and a thickness of the tile base 1 at the first side (the thickness of the base at the side adjacent 111 is the same as the thickness of the base at the first side). As illustrated, the height (which does not include the thickness of the material of the tile base 1) and the thickness are not equivalent, they are very close in size, to such a degree that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand a tile in which the two parameters were equivalent to have similar properties.
[AltContent: textbox (angle)][A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”. MPEP §2144.05.I.
Additionally, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the two parameters to ensure that water can be effectively discharged (¶0017) and so that the photovoltaic component can be effectively cooled (¶0021).
A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination 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. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02).
Per claim 13, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 12. In a reasonable interpretation, the first connecting part includes elements 18 and 20, and therefore comprises a snap-in slot 20 and an installation hole 18 opposite to each other (the two are laterally displaced from each other at a corner of the raising portion 12, Figs. 4, 5), wherein the snap-in slot is located on the base plate 107 (the slot 20 is vertically raised in a thickness direction with respect to the level of base plate 107) and adjacent to a first end of the raising portion 12. Similarly, in a reasonable interpretation, the second connecting part includes elements 35 and 181, and therefore comprises a snap-in piece 35 and a connector 181 opposite to each other, wherein the snap-in piece is clamped with the snap-in slot, and the connector is connected with the installation hole (¶0115-0121).
Per claim 15, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 12. The tile base 1 further comprises an installation portion 18 located on the second side of the tile base for overlapping with a beam used for installing the photovoltaic tile (the limitation “for overlapping with a beam used for installing the photovoltaic tile” is an intended use limitation; Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115; the text references a “substructure” which interacts with installation portion 18 in ¶0020, 0092-0094, and therefore a skilled artisan would understand the installation portion to be capable of overlapping with a beam).
Per claim 17, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 12. The designation of the first and second sides of the tile base, and the first and second ends of the raising portion, are arbitrary, as the tile base is mostly symmetrical in the up-down dimension of Fig. 1. Therefore, it is valid to switch the designations of the first and second sides and first and second ends so that the plurality of cable escape grooves 101 are on the first side.
Per claim 18, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 12. The raising portion 12 has a raising surface 121 and a fixing surface 120 (Fig. 1, ¶0018, 0121), and there is a default angle between the raising surface and the fixing surface (labeled in Marked-up Fig. 2 above), wherein the raising portion is fixedly connected to the second surface 14 through the fixing surface.
Per claim 19, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 12. The tile base 1 further comprises a first drainage groove 10 located on one side of the tile base and extending along the first direction (Fig. 1, ¶0017), wherein the first drainage groove has an opening at a raising end away from the photovoltaic panel 3 (Fig. 4, ¶0024).
Per claim 20, Herwig teaches the limitations of claim 12. The tile base 1 further comprises a second drainage groove (sketched over in grey in Marked-up Fig. 4 above) located on the second surface 14 of the tile base, wherein the second drainage groove extends along a second direction (the contour of the base provides a component of the drainage groove along a left-right direction), and has an opening toward the outside of the tile base along the second direction (the opening of the second drainage groove is offset from the center of the tile base along the left-right direction, and extends in width along the left-right direction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As the new rejection of the claims above also requires an obviousness determination of the relative height of the second end of the raising portion relative to the second surface and a thickness of the tile base at the first side, Applicant’s arguments regarding the criticality of the equality are considered herein. Applicant argues that the design of the claimed tile base and photovoltaic component allows for photovoltaic panels to fit together without gaps, so that adjacent photovoltaic tiles are flush. While this may represent a benefit of the design, a nexus between the evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention is not present (MPEP §715.01(b)). Claim 1 and its dependents are drawn to an individual photovoltaic tile, and the benefit seems to only be achieved when multiple photovoltaic tiles are overlapped in a particular way, as illustrated in reproduced instant Figure 14 on p. 9 of the arguments. Further, although claim 12 and its dependents are drawn to a roof comprising a plurality of photovoltaic tiles, the structural configuration between those tiles (i.e. the particular configuration of overlapping of the tiles) is not distinctly claimed. Therefore the evidence of nonobviousness is not sufficient to overcome the prima facie reasoning of obviousness presented above.
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 Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights