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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1, 5, 6, 8-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0148898 A1 to Hick in view of JP 2016073037 to Takagi.
Regarding claim 1, Hick discloses a roofing panel support comprising: a bracket (10) including: a support platform (12) with a top end (end by 16) and a bottom end (end by 30), a first leg (14 on left, Fig.1) extending rearward from a first side of the support platform, the first leg including a first lower edge (edge near 26) and a first slit (26) extending upward into the first lower edge, and a second leg (14 on opposite side, Fig.3) extending rearward from a second side of the support platform, the second leg including a second lower edge (same as first leg) and a second slit (26) extending upward into the second lower edge; a first hook (42) coupled to the bracket and disposed below the bottom end of the support platform, the first hook including an upward facing opening (Fig.1 and 6) configured to receive a bottom edge of the roofing panel (Fig.4).
Hick discloses wherein a flange of a support structure is inserted into slit (26) but does not specifically disclose a conductive malleable strip configured to be received in the first slit so as to provide an electrical connection between the bracket and a support structure.
Takagi discloses a conductive malleable strip (20) configured to be received on a flange thereby aiding in the connection between solar cells and the supporting frame (Fig.7b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided roofing panel support of Hick with a conductive strip as taught by Takagi so to enable the roofing panel support to both securely connect to the roofing structure as well as electrically ground the panel support to the roofing structure.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Hick in view of Takagi do not specifically disclose wherein the conductive malleable strip is formed of a softer material than the bracket, specifically aluminum, tin, or lead.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the strip from a softer material than the bracket of Hick so to both provide a highly conductive strip to ground the system as well as provide a means such that the material is secure squeezed within the slit, and therefore the batten is securely gripping the batten. Having a strip which is harder, will prevent the strip from squeezing or better gripping the batten when installed, possibly bending or damaging the slots in the bracket.
Regarding claim 8, Takagi discloses wherein the conductive malleable strip (20) includes a folded structure with a front flap (23, Fig.3) and a rear flap (22), and wherein the conductive malleable strip is configured to surround a flange of the support structure (Fig.1b and 7).
In combination with Hick, the front flap is positioned against a front edge of the first slit and the rear flap is positioned against a rear edge of the first slit (inserted into slit 26).
Regarding claim 9, the combination or Hick and Takagi disclose wherein the conductive malleable strip is plated on a flange of a batten (attached to 52, Fig.4).
Regarding claim 10, although Hick and Takagi do not disclose wherein the conductive malleable strip is configured to extend to the second slit of the second leg.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the strip of Takagi extending from the first slot of Hick to the second slot of Hick so to enable the strip to be formed in one piece and further to enable the strip to be better secured to the support structure since the engaged surface area is increased when securing the strip to the batten flange and the surface areas of multiple slits.
Regarding claim 11, Hick discloses wherein the first hook is formed by a metal clip secured to the bracket (Fig.6), the metal clip including: an upper portion (34, 36, 32) that extends behind the support platform, and an exposed lower portion (42, 42) that extends below the bottom end of the bracket and includes the first hook.
Regarding claim 15, Hick in view of Takagi discloses a roofing system comprising: Hicks discloses a surface structure of a roof (50 is secured to a roof, but not shown); a support structure (50) including a first batten (50) extending across the surface structure; a first roofing panel support according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above) secured to the first batten (Fig.4); and a first roofing panel (panel on bracket in Fig.4) disposed on the bracket of the first roofing panel support and held by the first hook of the first roofing panel support (Fig.4).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0148898 A1 to Hick in view of JP 2016073037 to Takagi in view of US 5,642,596 to Waddington.
Regarding claims 2-4, Hick discloses a bent bracket but is mute on the material used to form the bracket and therefore does not specifically disclose wherein an outer surface of the bracket is conductive and formed from a metal material.
Waddington discloses forming a roofing panel support being formed from a conductive, bent, metal bracket (13; Column 3, lines 45-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the bracket of Hick from a conductive metal material as taught by Waddington so to form a structurally sound bracket, resistant to forces and weather, and also providing a means to ground the entire roof structure with the battens.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0148898 A1 to Hick in view of JP 2016073037 to Takagi in view of US 11,674,537 B2 to Watson et al.
Regarding claim 7, Hick in view of Takagi do not disclose wherein an edge of the first slit includes a row of teeth.
Watson et al. disclose a slot of a bracket having a row of teeth (129a, Fig.1B; Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provided the slit with teeth as taught by Watson et al. so to enable the slit to better grip the strip and the batten of the roof support structure, thereby preventing unwanted disengagement of the support and the slit.
Claim(s) 12, 14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0148898 A1 to Hick in view of US 9,926,704 B1 to Nowacek.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Hick discloses a roofing panel support comprising: a bracket (10) including: a support platform (12) with a top end (end near 16) and a bottom end (end near 30), a first leg (14, Fig.1) extending rearward from a first side of the support platform, and a second leg (other 14, Fig.3) extending rearward from a second side of the support platform; a metal clip (30) secured to the bracket, the metal clip including: an upper portion (32, 34, 36) that extends behind the support platform, and an exposed lower portion (42, 42) that extends below the bottom end of the bracket and includes a first hook (42) with an upward facing opening configured to receive a bottom edge of the roofing panel.
Hick does not specifically disclose insulation surrounding the exposed lower portion of the metal clip.
Nowacek discloses providing hooks of a roofing panel support with a rubberized urethane or other powder coatings (Column 5, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provide an insulated coating to the hooks of Hick as taught by Nowacek so to protect the hooks from damage and weather, provide a means for the hooks to better engage the panels thereby preventing sliding, and also enable the hooks to be colored to hide the hooks from plain sight.
Regarding claim 19, wherein the first leg includes a first lower edge (edge with slit 26) and a first slit (26) extending upward into the first lower edge, and wherein the second leg includes a second lower edge (same as first leg) and a second slit (26) extending upward into the second lower edge.
Regarding claim 20, wherein the exposed lower portion of the metal clip includes a second hook (42, Fig.1 and 6) with an upward facing opening configured to receive the bottom edge of the roofing panel.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0148898 A1 to Hick in view of JP 2016073037 to Takagi in view of US 9,035,176 B2 to Keller.
Regarding claim 13, Hick in view of Takagi do not specifically disclose wherein the conductive malleable strip includes a forward extension configured to contact the metal clip.
Keller discloses providing a strip (40) having a forward extension (45) to engage different portions of the system to enhance grounding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the strip of Hick and Takagi with an extension to engage the hook clip as taught by Keller so to effectively ground the entire roofing support structure.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0148898 A1 to Hick in view of JP 2016073037 to Takagi in view of US 9,926,704 B1 to Nowacek in view of US 5,642,596 to Waddington.
Regarding claims 16-18, Hick discloses a bent bracket but is mute on the material used to form the bracket and therefore does not specifically disclose wherein an outer surface of the bracket is conductive and formed from a metal material.
Waddington discloses forming a roofing panel support being formed from a conductive, bent, metal bracket (13; Column 3, lines 45-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the bracket of Hick from a conductive metal material as taught by Waddington so to form a structurally sound bracket, resistant to forces and weather, and also providing a means to ground the entire roof structure with the battens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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 Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635