DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . This is the first office action on the merits. Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed March 28, 2024, is entered. Applicant amended claims 2-8. No new matter is entered. Claims 1-9 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction of flow of run-off water" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s also unclear if water being on the support plate is a requirement of the claimed invention or if installations that would keep the support plate water-free are within the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "these bearing surfaces" in lines 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 requires “a free arrangement of all or part of the at least one photovoltaic panel on the support plate….” It’s unclear what is required by a free arrangement within the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the bearing surfaces" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 requires the first and second lateral edges form first and second ribs, respectively, with the second lateral edge being designed to be fitted into the first lateral edge by cooperation of shape. It’s unclear whether the recitation in claim 4 requires a second support plate. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, is directed toward a singular support plate. The recitation of how the support plate mates with a second support plate is unclear in this context.
Claim 4 is also unclear because it requires the second lateral edge to be fitted into the first lateral edge and also requires the second lateral edge to overlap and cover the first lateral edge. These two requirements appear to contradict one another.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the bearing surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is also unclear as to what is required by the free arrangement within the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and requires a second removable elongation strip. Claim 1 does not require any elongation strips. It’s unclear if claim 8 implicitly requires two elongation strips.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bearing surface" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is also unclear as to what is required by the free arrangement within the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is unclear as to whether the support plates are required to be the same or if two differently structured support plates are within the scope of the claimed device.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
(3)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sabban (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0005610).
With respect to claims 1 and 3, Examiner notes the statements “suitable for attaching and integrating at least one photovoltaic panel (12) on a roof of a building,” “adapted to be assembled with a complementary edge of an adjacent support plate,” “to support a photovoltaic panel” and “so that the support plate (10) permits a free arrangement of all or part of at least one photovoltaic panel on the support plate (10)” are statements of intended use that do not further limit the claimed invention. The cited statements recite a function performed by the support plate. Any support plate meeting the requirements of the claimed invention are capable of the same use absent evidence to the contrary.
Sabban teaches a support plate (Figure 1) suitable for attaching and integrating at least one photovoltaic panel on a roof of a building. Figure 1 and Abstract. The support plate, as seen in Figure 1, is delimited in the longitudinal direction by a downstream end (18) and an upstream end (16) forming an upstream cover portion in the direction of flow of run-off water and transversely by a first lateral edge (14) and a second lateral edge (14) that are each adapted to be assembled with a complementary edge of an adjacent support plate. Figures 1, 3 and 4 and Paragraphs 38-44, 47 and 65.
Sabban further teaches the support plate comprises first and second bearing surfaces (42) arranged on either side of a longitudinal median axis of the support plate, the bearing surfaces being provided to support a photovoltaic panel. Figures 1 and 3 and Paragraphs 62 and 63. Specifically, surfaces 42 contact and, to a degree, support the photovoltaic panel because any gap between the two would allow water to flow into the empty space (40) and would render the groove for the cables superfluous. Figure 1 and 3 and Paragraphs 62 and 63.
Sabban next teaches the bearing surfaces extend longitudinally from the downstream end of the support plate up to the cover portion, the bearing surfaces flush with respect to the first and second lateral edges. Figures 1 and 3. Finally, Sabban’s support plate meets the requirements of the claimed invention and is designed to support a photovoltaic panel thereon, meaning it performs the intended use of permitting a free arrangement of all or part of at least one photovoltaic panel on the support plate. Paragraph 46. Examiner also notes Sabban specifically teaches the support plate adapts to different formats of photovoltaic panels, which also meets the requirements of the claimed free arrangement of all or part of at least one photovoltaic panel on the support plate.
With respect to claim 2, Sabban teaches the support plate comprises a recess (44) for the passage of a cable and the first bearing surface is between the first lateral edge and the recess and the second bearing surface is between the second lateral edge and the recess. Figures 1 and 3 and Paragraphs 62 and 63.
With respect to claim 4, Examiner notes the statement “being designed to be fitted into the first lateral edge (14) by cooperation of shape, in order to make it possible to assembly said support plate (10) with at least one adjacent support plate” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. The cited statement recites a function performed by the lateral edges of the support plate. Any support plate meeting the requirements of the claimed invention is capable of the same use absent evidence to the contrary.
Sabban teaches the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge form first and second ribs, respectively, as seen in Figure 3, that extend transversely, wherein the second lateral edge is designed to be fitted into the first lateral edge of an adjacent support plate by cooperation of shape, which makes it possible to assemble the support plate with the adjacent support plate by having the second lateral edge overlap and cover the first lateral edge in a sealed manner. Figures 3 and 4 and Paragraphs 47 and 48.
With respect to claim 5, Sabban teaches the first lateral edge includes a mechanical stiffening reinforcement (34). Figure 4 and Paragraph 69.
With respect to claim 9, Examiner notes the statements “for attaching and integrating a plurality of photovoltaic panels (12) on a roof of a building” and “to form a platform that is suitable for the support and free positioning of a plurality of photovoltaic panels” are statements of intended use that do not further limit the claimed invention. The cited statements recite a function performed by the device. Any device meeting the requirements of the claimed invention are capable of the same use absent evidence to the contrary.
Sabban teaches a device comprising at least first and second support plates, as explained above, wherein the first lateral edge of the first support plate is assembled with the second lateral edge of the second support plate to form a platform that is suitable for the support and free positioning of photovoltaic panels that are then integrated onto a roof building. Abstract, Figures 3 and 4 and Paragraphs 47 and 48.
(4)
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, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabban (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0005610) in view of Babonneau (EP 2 136 412 A2). The citations to Babonneau refer to the included English language machine translation of EP 2 136 412 A2.
With respect to claim 6, Sabban teaches the first and second bearing surfaces but is silent as to whether they include a mechanical stiffening reinforcement.
However, Babonneau, which deals with support plates, teaches a support plate is provided with stiffening ribs to obtain a self-supporting characteristic. Page 2, 6th Paragraph. Babonneau’s disclosure is clear that the stiffening ribs impart a reinforcement aspect to the plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate stiffening ribs into the first and second bearing surfaces taught by Sabban because Babonneau teaches doing so reinforces the plate, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(5)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, individually or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the first removable elongation strip meeting the specific requirements of claim 7 or the second removable elongation strip meeting the specific requirements of claim 8.
(6)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759