DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/6/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/26/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 48 and 57 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “Photo Voltaic” in capital letters as two separate words. Only proper names should be capitalized in a claim. It appears the claim should recite “photovoltaic”.
Claim 10 is objected to because “side” is omitted after “second” in line 10.
Claim 1, line 1 is objected to because it appears that “at least one other like-modules” should be “module” singular.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 8-14, 16 and 19-23 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, line 1 recites “at least one other like-module”. Line 4 recites “a respective like-module”. It is unclear if the second incidence of “like-module” is referring the like-module introduced in line 1. Should it instead recite “a respective one of the other like-module”?
Claim 1, line 10 recites “a second connection element”. Line 12 recites “a respective second connection element”. It is unclear if the second incidence of “second connection element” is referring to the previously introduced second connection element. Should it instead recite “a respective one of the second connection element”?
Claim terms should be clearly differentiated from each other or antecedence should be reflected with “the” or “said”.
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, 8-13, 16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al., US 2019/0214939.
Regarding claim 1:
Hall discloses a roof module (Figs. 1D and 2C) inter-connectable with at least one other like-module to form a roof of a building, said roof module comprising:
a structural frame (106/208) having a first couplable zone (116) and a second couplable zone (118), said first couplable zone being readily couplable to a respective second couplable zone of a respective like-module;
a photovoltaic layer (126/202) connected to said structural frame at least partially between said couplable zones;
a first connection element (102/130) disposed at said first couplable zone and operatively connected to said PV layer;
a second connection element (104/132) disposed at said second couplable zone and operatively connected to said PV layer (via wiring 204);
said first connection element being operatively couplable with a respective second connection element of the respective like-module to facilitate an electrical connection between their respective PV layers.
Regarding claim 2:
Hall discloses further comprising a functional layer (membrane 502) associated with the roof including water insulation (para. 0101 – waterproof sealant).
Regarding claim 3:
Hall discloses wherein the roof module is interconnectable with the respective like module in a liquid sealable manner (insulating adhesive 715).
Regarding claims 4 and 5:
Hall discloses wherein the roof module comprises a front surface (Fig. 1D) configured to face an exterior of the building, and opposite back surface (405, Fig. 4E) configured to face an interior of the building, and a plurality of side surfaces extending between the front and back surfaces,
wherein a first side surface of the plurality of side surfaces at least partially includes said first couplable zone and a second side surface of the plurality of side surfaces at least partially includes said second couplable zone (116 and 118, refer to Fig. 1D).
Regarding claims 8 and 9:
Hall discloses wherein at least one of the first side surface and the second surface has a stepped profile (Fig. 2C) when seen in a cross-section taken along a plane perpendicular to the respective side surface as well as to the first and/or second surface,
wherein the stepped profile is inter-lockable with a respective stepped profile of the respective like-module to provide said inter- connection between the two modules.
Regarding claims 10 and 11:
Hall discloses wherein at least one of the first side surface and the second surface has an inclined profile (along 118 shown in Fig. 3C) when seen in a cross-section taken along a plane perpendicular to the respective side surface as well as to the first and/or second surface,
wherein the inclined profile is inter-lockable with a respective inclined profile of the respective like-module to provide said inter- connection between the two modules.
Regarding claim 12:
Hall discloses wherein the roof module is interconnectable to the respective like-module such that at least a portion of the front surface of the roof module overlaps at least a portion of a respective second surface of the respective like-module in a direction perpendicular to a direction of said inter-connection and/or at least a portion of a respective front surface of the respective like-module overlaps at least a portion of the back surface of the roof module in a direction perpendicular to a direction of said inter-connection (refer to Fig. 5 showing the overlapping).
Regarding claim 13:
Hall discloses wherein the front surface is configured to constitute a continuous roof surface with a respective front surface of the respective like-module when the modules are inter-connected to form the roof (refer to Fig. 10, showing the interconnection).
Regarding claim 16:
Hall discloses wherein at least one of the first and second connection elements constitutes an electrical connector electrically coupled to the PV layer (both 102 and 104, refer to Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 19:
Hall discloses wherein the back surface is free of electrical or plumbing connections with an interior of the building (there is no connection out the back surface to the building).
Regarding claims 20-21:
Hall discloses wherein the connection elements are concealed by the couplable zones when the roof module is inter-connected with the respective like-module,
wherein said second couplable zone is readily couplable to a respective first couplable zone of another respective like-module.
Regarding claims 22-23:
Hall discloses wherein said second connection element is operatively couplable with a respective first connection element of said other respective like-module to facilitate an electrical connection between their respective PV layers,
wherein the structural frame comprises a third couplable zone and a fourth couplable zone, said third couplable zone being readily couplable to a respective fourth couplable zone of one of said at least one like-module and said fourth couplable zone being readily couplable to a respective third couplable zone of one of said at least one like-module (refer to Fig. 1A, showing first, second, third and fourth coupling zones along the 4 edges).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al., US 2019/0214939 in view of Hines, GB 2542199.
Regarding claim 14:
Hall does not expressly disclose wherein either of the connection elements is configured to facilitate establishment of a continuous and sealed plumbing line therethrough.
Hines discloses a construction panel that may include a PV solar cell and also has integral conduits (7.6) along the connection elements (7.2) to facilitate establishment of a continuous and sealed plumbing line therethrough.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to configure the connection elements of Hall to facilitate establishment of a continuous and sealed plumbing line therethrough as suggested by Hines in order to provide building services.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights