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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 18-37, as originally filed 18 APR. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 18-37 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11454027 B2 and claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12123194 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features defined by the non-identical claim language would each be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when constructing the invention disclosed in US 11454027 B2 and US 12123194 B2.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/20/2024 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 27-28 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 27 ln. 8: after “third roofing shingle,” insert --and--
Cl. 28 ln. 19: after “side of a” delete “a corresponding one and the one and” as this appears to be a typographical error rendering the sentence incomplete
Cl. 28 ln. 22: after “side of” delete “the corresponding one and” as this appears to be a typographical error rendering the sentence incomplete
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 18-21, 24-31 and 34-37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DANNO KAZUHISA et al. JP 2001098703 A (Danno) in view of Flanigan et al. US 9966898 B1
PNG
media_image1.png
332
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 18 the primary reference of Danno teaches a known method of shingle installation (“ROOF STRUCTURE AND ROOFING METHOD” title),comprising:
an array of shingles includes a plurality of rows having a first row (first row, circled “5”, EXRFIG. 4) and a second row (second row, circled “4”, EXRFIG. 4); and
a first plurality of roofing shingles on the roof deck (shingle “1” “2” “3” and “4” EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the first plurality of roofing shingles includes
a first roofing shingle (shingle “1” EXRFIG. 4),
a second roofing shingle (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4),
a third roofing shingle (shingle “3” EXRFIG. 4), and
a fourth roofing shingle (shingle “4” EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the first roofing shingle (shingle “1” EXRFIG. 4) and the third roofing shingle (shingle “3” EXRFIG. 4) are in the first row (see row of above identified shingles “1” and “3”),
wherein the second roofing shingle (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4) and the fourth roofing shingle (shingle “4” EXRFIG. 4) are in the second row (see row of above identified shingles “2” and “4”),
wherein the first and second roofing shingles (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4) are proximate a first side (left side, EXRFIG. 4) of the array,
wherein the third and fourth roofing shingles (shingle “3” and “4” EXRFIG. 4) are proximate a second side (right side, EXRFIG. 4) of the array opposite the first side (left side, EXRFIG. 4), and
wherein a first pattern of the first and second roofing shingles (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4) and a second pattern of the third and fourth roofing shingles (shingle “3” and “4” EXRFIG. 4) are different.
but fails to explicitly disclose:
a plurality of shingles in the array of shingles are photovoltaic shingles in an array on the roof
Flanigan teaches a plurality of shingles in an array can be photovoltaic shingles, specifically:
a plurality of shingles in the array of shingles are photovoltaic shingles in an array on the roof (see “Further, some arrangements of solar and non-solar… roof tiles, can generate a visual pattern and aesthetic that appear irregular, random” 1:67; also “randomized or semi-randomized assortment of PV tiles and blank roof tiles” 9:29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Danno by substituting the photovoltaic tiles in an irregular pattern —as claimed— as taught by Flanigan in order to fill out portions of the roof around the solar shingles to maximize generative potential and fill surrounding areas with normal shingles to prevent gaps in the covering.
As per claim 19 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 18, and Flanigan further discloses wherein a length of the second roofing shingle is equal to a length of the fourth roofing shingle (see “In some aspects, a strand of PV tiles… PV tile strands of various lengths can be used to lay roof tiles… over roof surface… mixing, matching, and fitting PV tile strands as appropriate for the unique contours of any given installation” 18:19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Danno in view of Flanigan by substituting the lengths to be equal as taught by Flanigan for the purpose of the matching the unique contours of a given installation.
As per claim 20-21 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 19, and Flanigan further discloses (Cl. 20) wherein a length of the first roofing shingle is greater than the length of the second roofing shingle (see “PV tile strands of various lengths can be used” 18:22; this is recognized as teaching one longer than the other); and (Cl. 21) wherein a length of the third roofing shingle is less than the length of the second roofing shingle (see “PV tile strands of various lengths can be used” 18:22; this is recognized as teaching one longer than the other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Danno in view of Flanigan by substituting the lengths to be one longer than the other as taught by Flanigan for the purpose of the matching the unique contours of a given installation.
As per claim 24 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 18, and Danno further discloses further comprising installing a second plurality of roofing shingles either above the array or below the array (see shingles above or below 2” and “4”, EXRFIG. 4).
As per claim 25 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 18, and Danno further discloses further comprising installing a second plurality of roofing shingles below the array (see shingles below “1” and “3”, EXRFIG. 4), and installing a third plurality of roofing shingles above the array (see shingles above “2” and “4”, EXRFIG. 4).
As per claim 26 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 18, and Danno further discloses obtaining a second plurality of roofing shingles (see shingles left of “1” and “2” and right of “3” and “4”, EXRFIG. 4), wherein the second plurality of roofing shingles includes a fifth roofing shingle (see “fifth” left of “2”, EXRFIG. 4), and a sixth roofing shingle (see “sixth” right of “3” , EXRFIG. 4), wherein a length of the fifth roofing shingle is equal to a length of the sixth roofing shingle (see EXRFIG. 4), wherein the fifth roofing shingle is in the first row and proximate the first roofing shingle (shingle “1” EXRFIG. 4) or the third roofing shingle (shingle “3” EXRFIG. 4), and
wherein the sixth roofing shingle is in the second row and proximate the second roofing shingle (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4) or the fourth roofing shingle (shingle “4” EXRFIG. 4).
As per claim 27 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 18, further comprising obtaining a second plurality of roofing shingles, wherein the second plurality of roofing shingles includes
a fifth roofing shingle (see “fifth” left of “1” , EXRFIG. 4),
a sixth roofing shingle (see “sixth” right of “2”, EXRFIG. 4),
a seventh roofing shingle (see “seventh” right of “3”, EXRFIG. 4), and
an eighth roofing shingle (see “eighth” right of “4”, EXRFIG. 4),
wherein lengths of the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth roofing shingles are equal to one another (EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the fifth roofing shingle (see “fifth” left of “1” , EXRFIG. 4) is in the first row and proximate the first roofing shingle (shingle “1” EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the sixth roofing shingle (see “sixth” right of “2”, EXRFIG. 4) is in the second row and proximate the second roofing shingle (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the seventh roofing shingle (see “seventh” right of “3”, EXRFIG. 4) is in the first row and proximate the third roofing shingle (shingle “3” EXRFIG. 4), --and--
wherein the eighth roofing shingle (see “eighth” right of “4”, EXRFIG. 4) is in the second row and proximate the fourth roofing shingle (shingle “4” EXRFIG. 4).
As per claim 28 the primary reference of Danno teaches a known system (“ROOF STRUCTURE AND ROOFING METHOD” title), comprising:
a plurality of shingles installed on a roof deck (see shingles, EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the plurality of shingles are arranged in a plurality of rows (see rows circled “5” , circled “4”, circled “3”, circled “2”, circled “1” EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the plurality of rows includes a first row (see row of annotated shingles “1” and “3” EXRFIG. 4) and a second row (see row of annotated shingles “2” and “4” EXRFIG. 4),
a first plurality of roofing shingles (see first plurality of shingles, EXRFIG. 4) installed on the roof deck,
wherein the first plurality of roofing shingles includes a first roofing shingle (shingle “1” EXRFIG. 4),
a second roofing shingle (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4),
a third roofing shingle (shingle “3” EXRFIG. 4), and
a fourth roofing shingle (shingle “4” EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the first roofing shingle (shingle “1” EXRFIG. 4) and the third roofing shingle (shingle “3” EXRFIG. 4) are in the first row (see row of above identified shingles “1” and “3”),
wherein the second roofing shingle (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4) and the fourth roofing shingle (shingle “4” EXRFIG. 4) are in the second row (see row of above identified shingles “2” and “4”),
wherein each of the first and second roofing shingles (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4) are proximate to a first side of [[a corresponding one and the one and]] at least one of the plurality of shingles,
wherein each of the third and fourth roofing shingles (shingle “3” and “4” EXRFIG. 4) are proximate a second side (right side, EXRFIG. 4) of the [[corresponding one and the one and]] at least another one of the plurality of shingles (see additional un-identified shingles, left side, EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the second side (right side, EXRFIG. 4) is opposite the first side (left side, EXRFIG. 4), and
wherein a first pattern of the first and second roofing shingles (pattern between shingles “1” and “2” EXRFIG. 4) and a second pattern of the third and fourth roofing shingles (pattern between shingles “3” and “4” EXRFIG. 4) is different (note upwards and leftward pattern between shingles “1” and “2” contrasted to upwards and rightwards pattern between shingles “3” and “4”, EXRFIG. 4).
Danno fails to explicitly disclose:
a plurality of shingles in the array of shingles are photovoltaic shingles
wherein at least one of the plurality of photovoltaic shingles is in the first row and at least another one of the plurality of photovoltaic shingles is in the second row; and
the another one of the plurality of shingles is a photovoltaic shingle
Flanigan teaches a plurality of shingles in an array can be photovoltaic shingles, specifically:
a plurality of shingles in the array of shingles are photovoltaic shingles (see “Further, some arrangements of solar and non-solar… roof tiles, can generate a visual pattern and aesthetic that appear irregular, random” 1:67; also “randomized or semi-randomized assortment of PV tiles and blank roof tiles” 9:29)
wherein at least one of the plurality of photovoltaic shingles is in the first row and at least another one of the plurality of photovoltaic shingles is in the second row (see “Further, some arrangements of solar and non-solar… roof tiles, can generate a visual pattern and aesthetic that appear irregular, random” 1:67; also “randomized or semi-randomized assortment of PV tiles and blank roof tiles” 9:29); and
the another one of the plurality of shingles is a photovoltaic shingle (see “Further, some arrangements of solar and non-solar… roof tiles, can generate a visual pattern and aesthetic that appear irregular, random” 1:67; also “randomized or semi-randomized assortment of PV tiles and blank roof tiles” 9:29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Danno by substituting the photovoltaic tiles in an irregular pattern —as claimed— as taught by Flanigan in order to fill out portions of the roof around the solar shingles to maximize generative potential and fill surrounding areas with normal shingles to prevent gaps in the covering.
As per claim 29-31 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 28, and Flanigan further discloses (Cl. 29) wherein a length of the second roofing shingle is equal to a length of the fourth roofing shingle (see “In some aspects, a strand of PV tiles… PV tile strands of various lengths can be used to lay roof tiles… over roof surface… mixing, matching, and fitting PV tile strands as appropriate for the unique contours of any given installation” 18:19); (Cl. 30) wherein a length of the first roofing shingle is greater that the length of the second roofing shingle (see “PV tile strands of various lengths can be used” 18:22; this is recognized as teaching one longer than the other); and (Cl. 31) wherein a length of the third roofing shingle is less that the length of the second roofing shingle (see “PV tile strands of various lengths can be used” 18:22; this is recognized as teaching one longer than the other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Danno in view of Flanigan by substituting the lengths to be one longer than the other as taught by Flanigan for the purpose of the matching the unique contours of a given installation.
As per claim 34 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 28, and Danno further discloses a second plurality of roofing shingles (see shingles below “1” and “3”, EXRFIG. 4) installed on the roof deck below the plurality of photovoltaic shingles, and a third plurality of roofing shingles installed on the roof deck above (see shingles above “2” and “4”, EXRFIG. 4) the plurality of photovoltaic shingles.
As per claim 35 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 28, and Danno further discloses a second plurality of roofing shingles (see shingles left of “1” and “2” and right of “3” and “4”, EXRFIG. 4) installed on the roof deck,
wherein the second plurality of roofing shingles includes a fifth roofing shingle (see “fifth” left of “1” , EXRFIG. 4), and
a sixth roofing shingle (see “sixth” right of “2”, EXRFIG. 4),
wherein a length of the fifth roofing shingle is equal to a length of the sixth roofing shingle,
wherein the fifth roofing shingle is in the first row and proximate the first roofing shingle (shingle “1” EXRFIG. 4) or the third roofing shingle (shingle “3” EXRFIG. 4), and
wherein the sixth roofing shingle is in the second row and proximate the second roofing shingle (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4) or the fourth roofing shingle (shingle “4” EXRFIG. 4).
As per claim 36 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 28, and Danno further discloses further comprising: installing a second plurality of roofing shingles (see shingles left of “1” and “2” and right of “3” and “4”, EXRFIG. 4) on the roof deck,
wherein the second plurality of roofing shingles includes a fifth roofing shingle (see “fifth” left of “1” , EXRFIG. 4),
a sixth roofing shingle (see “sixth” right of “2”, EXRFIG. 4),
a seventh roofing shingle (see “seventh” right of “3”, EXRFIG. 4), and
an eighth roofing shingle (see “eighth” right of “4”, EXRFIG. 4),
wherein lengths of the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth roofing shingles are equal to one another (see “the vertical dimension and the horizontal dimension of the solar cell module tile are the same” [0015]),
wherein the fifth roofing shingle is in the first row and proximate the first roofing shingle (shingle “1” EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the sixth roofing shingle is in the second row and proximate the second roofing shingle (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the seventh roofing shingle is in the first row and proximate the third roofing shingle (shingle “3” EXRFIG. 4), and
wherein the eighth roofing shingle is in the second row and proximate the fourth roofing shingle (shingle “4” EXRFIG. 4).
As per claim 37 the primary reference of Danno teaches a roofing system (“ROOF STRUCTURE AND ROOFING METHOD” title), comprising:
a roof deck (“ROOF STRUCTURE” title);
first, second, third, and fourth roofing shingles (shingle “1” “2” “3” and “4” EXRFIG. 4) installed on the roof deck,
wherein the first roofing shingle (shingle “1” EXRFIG. 4) is in the first row (see row of above identified shingles “1” and “3”),
wherein the first roofing shingle (shingle “1” EXRFIG. 4) is proximate a first side (left side, EXRFIG. 4) of the array,
wherein the second roofing shingle (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4) is in the second row (see row of above identified shingles “2” and “4”),
wherein the second roofing shingle (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4) is proximate the first side (left side, EXRFIG. 4) of the array,
wherein the third roofing shingle (shingle “3” EXRFIG. 4) is in the first row (see row of above identified shingles “1” and “3”),
wherein the third roofing shingle (shingle “3” EXRFIG. 4) is proximate a second side (right side, EXRFIG. 4) of the array opposite the first side (left side, EXRFIG. 4),
wherein the fourth roofing shingle (shingle “4” EXRFIG. 4) is in the second row (see row of above identified shingles “2” and “4”),
wherein the fourth roofing shingle (shingle “4” EXRFIG. 4) is proximate the second side (right side, EXRFIG. 4) of the array, and
wherein a first pattern of the first and second roofing shingles (shingle “2” EXRFIG. 4) and a second pattern of the third and fourth roofing shingles (shingle “3” and “4” EXRFIG. 4) are different.
Danno fails to explicitly disclose:
a first photovoltaic module and a second photovoltaic module,
wherein the first photovoltaic module and the second photovoltaic module are installed in an array on the roof deck,
wherein the first photovoltaic module is in a first row of the array and the second photovoltaic module is in a second row of the array; and
Flanigan teaches a plurality of shingles in an array can be photovoltaic shingles, specifically:
a first photovoltaic module and a second photovoltaic module (see “Further, some arrangements of solar and non-solar… roof tiles, can generate a visual pattern and aesthetic that appear irregular, random” 1:67; also “randomized or semi-randomized assortment of PV tiles and blank roof tiles” 9:29),
wherein the first photovoltaic module and the second photovoltaic module are installed in an array on the roof deck (see “Further, some arrangements of solar and non-solar… roof tiles, can generate a visual pattern and aesthetic that appear irregular, random” 1:67; also “randomized or semi-randomized assortment of PV tiles and blank roof tiles” 9:29),
wherein the first photovoltaic module is in a first row of the array and the second photovoltaic module is in a second row of the array (see “Further, some arrangements of solar and non-solar… roof tiles, can generate a visual pattern and aesthetic that appear irregular, random” 1:67; also “randomized or semi-randomized assortment of PV tiles and blank roof tiles” 9:29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Danno by substituting the photovoltaic tiles in an irregular pattern —as claimed— as taught by Flanigan in order to fill out portions of the roof around the solar shingles to maximize generative potential and fill surrounding areas with normal shingles to prevent gaps in the covering.
Claim 22-23 and 32-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danno in view of Flanigan as applied to claim 18 and 31 above, and further in view of Folkersen et al. US 10364573 B2 (Folkersen).
As per claim 22-23 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 18, and Danno further discloses cutting the panel (see “In view of this, it is conceivable to cut off the solar cell module tile at the portion protruding in a convex shape at the left and right halves so as to align it with the concave side portions of the upper and lower rows.” [0010]) but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 22) cutting a shingle to form the first roofing shingle and the third roofing shingle; and
(Cl. 23) cutting at least two shingles to form the first, second, third, and fourth roofing shingles.
Folkersen teaches cutting a base tile, specifically:
(Cl. 22) cutting a shingle to form the first roofing shingle and the third roofing shingle (see “configured to enable an installer to square shingles to one another, align adjacent shingles in a uniform manner, cut books of shingles, form starter shingles from full shingles, and form a grid of shingles without requiring the use of external measuring devices.” Cl. 7);
(Cl. 23) cutting at least two shingles to form the first, second, third, and fourth roofing shingles (see “configured to enable an installer to square shingles to one another, align adjacent shingles in a uniform manner, cut books of shingles, form starter shingles from full shingles, and form a grid of shingles without requiring the use of external measuring devices.” Cl. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Danno in view of Flanigan by including the cutting of shingle as taught by Folkersen in order to form a grid of shingles without requiring the use of external measuring devices.
As per claim 32-33 Danno in view of Flanigan teaches the limitations according to claim 31, and Danno further discloses cutting the panel (see “In view of this, it is conceivable to cut off the solar cell module tile at the portion protruding in a convex shape at the left and right halves so as to align it with the concave side portions of the upper and lower rows.” [0010]) but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 32) wherein at least one shingle is cut to form the first roofing shingle and the third roofing shingle .
(Cl. 33) wherein at least two shingles are cut to form the first, second, third, and fourth roofing shingles.
Folkersen teaches cutting a base tile, specifically:
(Cl. 32) wherein at least one shingle is cut to form the first roofing shingle and the third roofing shingle (see “configured to enable an installer to square shingles to one another, align adjacent shingles in a uniform manner, cut books of shingles, form starter shingles from full shingles, and form a grid of shingles without requiring the use of external measuring devices.” Cl. 7).
(Cl. 33) wherein at least two shingles are cut to form the first (see “configured to enable an installer to square shingles to one another, align adjacent shingles in a uniform manner, cut books of shingles, form starter shingles from full shingles, and form a grid of shingles without requiring the use of external measuring devices.” Cl. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Danno in view of Flanigan by including the cutting of shingle as taught by Folkersen in order to form a grid of shingles without requiring the use of external measuring devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Croft; Steven T. et al. US 8833005 B1 “Some BIP assemblies may be made into smaller formats to fill smaller remaining areas of the roof tops. Furthermore, BIP assemblies may be supplied together with a look-a-like roof boards (i.e., "dummy" boards) that do not include photovoltaic inserts or photovoltaic cells” 5:48
Rodrigues; Tommy F. US 10693413 B2 “solar tiles of the present invention mounted on a roof deck along with non-solar tiles to form a roof covering” 2:38
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 D 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JJS/
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
