DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 has been amended and claim(s) 15-20 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flahetry et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0289272) in view of Almogy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0090707).
Regarding claim 1, Flahetry et al. teaches a roofing tile assembly (abstract), comprising: a photovoltaic (PV) roofing tile (108), comprising: an optically transparent front cover (610); a back cover (106); a plurality of solar cells (622) disposed between the optically transparent front cover and the back cover (figures 4, 8 and 9); and a plurality of tile hooks (210) coupled to the back cover (figure 4); and a roofing tile base (102), comprising: a sun-facing surface (top surface) in direct contact with the back cover (figure 7) and extending from a first lateral side of the roofing tile to a second lateral side of the roofing tile opposite the first lateral side (figure 4); a plurality of vertical standoffs (116) configured to establish a height of the sun-facing surface above a roofing substrate (figure 5).
Flahetry et al. does not specifically disclose each tile hook of the plurality of tile hooks being spaced apart from and disposed inboard of an outer perimeter of the back cover; and a plurality of apertures extending through the roofing tile base, wherein a first tile hook of the plurality of tile hooks extends through a first aperture of the plurality of apertures and engages a portion of the roofing tile base defining the first aperture.
Almogy et al. discloses a solar collector assembly (title) including tile hooks (188) wherein each tile hook of the plurality of tile hooks being spaced apart from and disposed inboard of an outer perimeter of the back cover (figure 4A); and a plurality of apertures (159) extending through the roofing tile base (155; figure 4B), wherein a first tile hook of the plurality of tile hooks extends through a first aperture of the plurality of apertures and engages a portion of the roofing tile base defining the first aperture (figure 4B).
Therefore, from the teaching of Almogy et al., 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 photovoltaic panel assembly of Flahetry et al. such that each tile hook of the plurality of tile hooks being spaced apart from and disposed inboard of an outer perimeter of the back cover; and a plurality of apertures extending through the roofing tile base, wherein a first tile hook of the plurality of tile hooks extends through a first aperture of the plurality of apertures and engages a portion of the roofing tile base defining the first aperture, as taught by Almogy et al., in order to further secure adjacent roofing tile assemblies, to provide a snap-on fit that provides tactile feedback for ease of assembly and eliminates the need for dealing with alignment issues in the field.
Regarding claim 5, Flahetry et al. teaches the plurality of vertical standoffs comprises four or more vertical standoffs (figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Flahetry et al. teaches the roofing tile base is a single piece (abstract). With regards to the limitation that the product is formed by using injection molded, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Flahetry et al. teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Flahetry et al. teaches the roofing tile base is formed from a polymeric material (paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 8, Flahetry et al. teaches the PV roofing tile comprises a junction box (310) coupled to the back cover (figure 7) and the roofing tile base defines an electrical component recess (170) that accommodates a height of the junction box between the roofing tile base and the back cover (figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 9, Flahetry et al. teaches the roofing tile base includes a plurality of retaining features (182) configured to attach the roofing tile base to a non-PV roofing tile (it is understood that the retaining features are capable of being configured to attach the roofing tile base to a non-PV roofing tile).
Regarding claim 10, Flahetry et al. teaches a first vertical standoff of the plurality of vertical standoffs is larger than a second standoff of the plurality of vertical standoffs (as illustrated, some of the vertical standoffs 116 are larger than the ones interrupted by opening 170; figure 5).
Regarding claim 11, Flahetry et al. teaches bottom surfaces of the plurality of vertical standoffs cooperatively define a first plane anti-parallel to the sun-facing surface (as illustrated, bottom surfaces of 116 at the notches 320 define a first plane anti-parallel to the sun-facing surface; figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Flahetry et al. teaches the roofing tile base is configured to position a first corner region of the sun-facing surface a first distance from a roofing substrate (arbitrary first corner region; figure 5), a second corner region of the sun-facing surface a second distance from the roofing substrate (arbitrary second corner region; figure 5), a third corner region of the sun-facing surface a third distance from the roofing substrate (arbitrary third corner region; figure 5) and a fourth corner region of the sun-facing surface a fourth distance from the roofing substrate (arbitrary fourth corner region; figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Flahetry et al. teaches the roofing tile base further comprises an integrated sidelap (132) protruding from a lateral side of the roofing tile base (figure 4) and configured to extend beneath a gap between the roofing tile base and another roofing tile base adjacent to the roofing tile base (it is understood that the sidelap is capable of extending beneath a gap between the roofing tile base and another roofing tile base adjacent to the roofing tile base). The examiner notes that the another roofing tile base adjacent to the roofing tile base, is not being positively claimed.
Claim(s) 2-4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flahetry et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0289272), in view of Almogy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0090707), and in view of Seery et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/026594).
Regarding claim 2, Flahetry et al. as modified does not specifically disclose the roofing tile base comprises a plurality of lateral standoffs protruding from a down-roof facing end of the roofing tile base below a sun-facing surface of the roofing tile base.
Seery et al. discloses a roofing tile base (figure 5E) comprises a plurality of lateral standoffs (318) protruding from a down-roof facing end of the roofing tile base below a sun-facing surface of the roofing tile base (figure 5E).
Therefore, from the teaching of Seery et al., 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 modified photovoltaic panel assembly of Flahetry et al. such that the roofing tile base comprises a plurality of lateral standoffs protruding from a down-roof facing end of the roofing tile base below a sun-facing surface of the roofing tile base, as taught by Seery et al., in order to further secure adjacent roofing tile assemblies, to ensure a consistent alignment and facilitate assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Seery et al. in the combination discloses the roofing tile base further comprises a plurality of alignment notches (314) extending into the sun-facing surface of the roofing tile base (figure 5E).
Regarding claim 4, Seery et al. in the combination discloses the plurality of alignment notches are configured to receive a lateral standoff of another roofing tile base up-roof of the roofing tile base (figure 5E).
Claim(s) 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flahetry et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0289272) in view of Almogy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0090707), and in view of Salam (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0199180).
Regarding claim 13, Flahetry et al. as modified does not specifically disclose the first distance is greater than the second distance, the second distance is greater than the third distance and the third distance is greater than the fourth distance.
Salam discloses a solar panel frame (abstract) wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (as illustrated, a first distance of a first corner region, is greater than a second distance at a second corner region; see annotated figure 2 below), the second distance is greater than the third distance (as illustrated, the second distance of the second corner region, is greater than a third distance at a third corner region; see annotated figure 2 below) and the third distance is greater than the fourth distance (as illustrated, the third distance of the third corner region, is greater than a fourth distance at a fourth corner region; annotated figure 2).
Therefore, from the teaching of Salam, 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 modified photovoltaic panel assembly of Flahetry et al. such that the first distance is greater than the second distance, the second distance is greater than the third distance and the third distance is greater than the fourth distance, as taught by Salam, in order to reduce wind uplift by presenting a less abrupt edge to wind, for a more stable design.
PNG
media_image1.png
545
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
New reference(s) Almogy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0090707) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s amendment regarding
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment regarding each tile hook of the plurality of tile hooks being spaced apart from and disposed inboard of an outer perimeter of the back cover, overcomes the previous rejection in view of Flahetry et al. New reference Almogy et al. teaches the new limitation and overcomes the previous rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. 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.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights