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 June 28, 2024, is entered. Applicant amended claims 1-13 and 15-18. No new matter is entered. Claims 1-18 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to a load-bearing walls” should be “to load-bearing walls”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein an at least” should be “wherein at least”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner notes this typographical error appears in three instances in claim 11.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein it comprises” should be “further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an at least one” should be “at least one”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner notes this typographical error appears in two instances in claim 17.
(3)
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 1-18 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 "said at least one modular roof panel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the module roof panel" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the roof" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the roof" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, “said at least one module roof panel” and “the module roof panel” appear to be referring to the same roof panel using different terminology. This renders the claim indefinite. Applicant should use consistent terminology throughout.
Claim 1 is also unclear as to how the channel and side profiles are incorporated into the system. The system comprises these two structural features, but the claimed invention is insolubly ambiguous as to the structure of the claimed system.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the at least one module roof panel" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should amend the language of claim 2 to be consistent with that of claim 1 to overcome the rejection.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the electrical junction box" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should amend claim 3 to depend from claim 2 to overcome the rejection.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the through opening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should amend claim 3 to depend from claim 2 to overcome the rejection.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be amended to read “the C-shaped body” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said side walls" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should be amended to “the side walls” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the side of their outer surfaces" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the adjacent horizontal members" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be amended to read “the C-shaped body” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outer surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lower surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the adjacent horizontal members" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 requires an electrical junction box electrically connected to a photovoltaic module. It’s unclear if the photovoltaic module is the same as that recited in claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, or if the claim 11 requires at least two photovoltaic modules.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the adjacent horizontal members" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the entire circumference" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the electrical cables connecting the electrical junction box" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the external side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the electrical insulating material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 should be amended to depend from claim 13 to overcome the rejection.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "[t]he method according to claim 11" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 should be amended to depend from claim 17 to overcome this rejection.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the gap" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the edge of the through opening and the electrical junction box" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claims 2-18 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
(4)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-18 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:
Loscalzo (WO 2011/048565) teaches, as seen in Figure 17, a modular photovoltaic roofing system comprising a plurality of modular roof panels having a photovoltaic module integrated on each panel and attached to a batten (roof framework), but fail to teach or fairly suggest an at least one longitudinal profile for routing electrical cables and/or mounting electronic devices, wherein the at least one longitudinal channel profile has a structure that allows it to be disposed between horizontal members of the roof framework that are spaced parallel to one another along a ridge of the roof at predetermined intervals, as required by claim 1.
(5)
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights