DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The Restriction election received on 05/18/2026 has been acknowledged. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are now pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group II (figure 5) in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 4, 6, 10, and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention Group I and III-V. In addition, claims 19 and 20 are drawn to the non-elected inventions of Groups III and IV, respectively, and are hereby withdrawn as well. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 05/18/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of II in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I to V are directed to related aspects of a single overall invention and shares a common technical feature that contributes over the prior art, satisfying the unity-of-invention standard. This is not found persuasive because while the inventions share a common technical feature, the common technical feature is not considered a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “electric conducting cables” of claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, and 12-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, at line 8, the recitation “each other” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired, in particular since it is unclear as to what constitutes "each other".
Regarding claim 1, at line 9, the recitation “the opening” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, at line 21, the recitation “them” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired, in particular since it is unclear as to what constitutes "them".
Regarding claim 2, at line 3, the recitation “acting as a wedge” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired, in particular since it is unclear as to what constitutes "acting as".
Regarding claim 2, at line 3, the recitation “the mentioned” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, at line 2, the recitation “one or more wedges” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis or creates ambiguity as to whether it is referring to the same previously recited limitation “a wedge”.
Regarding claim 9, at line 2, the recitation “on which there rests” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired, in particular since it is unclear as to what constitutes "there".
Regarding claim 12, at line 2, the recitation “lower surfaces of the two grooved guides are coplanar” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to how the lower surfaces can be coplanar since they extend in different planes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but 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] if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, the limitation “wherein the rigid support includes through holes parallel to the grooved guides, and each wedge includes an anchoring, or an anchoring provided with a toothed or barbed configuration at the edges thereof, snugly inserted into one of the through holes, fixing the position thereof” would overcome the prior art rejection since no prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches this configuration and such a modification to include the configuration would require modifying the modifier reference which would involve hindsight reconstruction.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-18, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melchior (U.S. Patent No. 5776262 A) in view of Liang (CN 113872502 A).
Regarding claim 1, Melchior teaches a photoelectric building block (17) comprising: a rigid support, made of a single piece of extrudable nonmetal material (clay; col. 3, lines 20-25), provided with a front with a first coupling configuration (top of 17; figure 5) and with a back (bottom of 17; figure 5); at least one photoelectric panel with a second coupling configuration (14) attached to the first coupling configuration (figure 5), the photoelectric panel covering at least part of the front of the rigid support (figure 5); the first coupling configuration consists of a sunken channel (18), formed on the front of the rigid support (figure 5), between two opposing grooved guides (19) parallel to each other (figure 5), the grooved guides defining a narrowing of an opening (see annotated figure 5 below) of the sunken channel (as illustrated, a portion of the sunken channel narrows at the opening), each grooved guide including a lower surface (annotated figure 5) facing the bottom of the sunken channel (figure 5); the second coupling configuration is inserted into the sunken channel (figure 5) and has opposite coupling ends inserted into the two opposing grooved guides (at 19; figure 5), the separation between the opposite coupling ends being greater than the opening of the sunken channel (figure 5); the rigid support has a cross-section, perpendicular to the two grooved guides (figure 5), that is constant along the entire length thereof (figure 5), defining a geometry suitable for manufacturing same by extrusion (it is understood that the clay block is capable of being extruded).
Melchior does not specifically disclose the photoelectric building block further comprises a retainer device retaining the photoelectric panel with respect to the rigid support, hindering the sliding of the second coupling configuration with respect to the first coupling configuration; and the retainer device urges the opposite coupling ends of the second coupling configuration towards the lower surface of the two grooved guides, moving them away from the bottom of the sunken channel.
Liang discloses a photovoltaic tile (figure 1) including a retainer device (130) retaining the photoelectric panel with respect to the rigid support (figure 1), hindering the sliding of the second coupling configuration with respect to the first coupling configuration (it is understood that the retainer device would hinder the sliding of the second coupling configuration with respect to the first coupling configuration); and the retainer device urges the opposite coupling ends of the second coupling configuration towards the lower surface of the two grooved guides, moving them away from the bottom of the sunken channel (it is understood that the retainer device would press upward to urge the opposite coupling ends of the second coupling configuration towards the lower surface of the two grooved guides, moving them away from the bottom of the sunken channel).
Therefore, from the teaching of Liang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the photovoltaic tile assembly of Melchior to include a retainer device retaining the photoelectric panel with respect to the rigid support, hindering the sliding of the second coupling configuration with respect to the first coupling configuration; and the retainer device urges the opposite coupling ends of the second coupling configuration towards the lower surface of the two grooved guides, moving them away from the bottom of the sunken channel, as taught by Liang, in order to further secure the photovoltaic panel within the tile to prevent slippage, while minimizing additional installation tooling, to facilitate assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Liang in the combination teaches the retainer device is housed between the photoelectric panel and the bottom of the sunken channel acting as a wedge (figure 1), causing the mentioned urging of the opposite coupling ends towards the lower surface of the two grooved guides (figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Melchior teaches the photoelectric panel, is elastically deformed at least partially (figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Melchior teaches the lower surfaces of the two grooved guides are coplanar (as illustrated, the lower surfaces of the two grooved guides are as described in the claimed invention, therefore the limitation is met; figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Melchior teaches the lower surfaces of the two grooved guides slope towards the opening of the sunken channeling (figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Melchior teaches the photoelectric panel is inserted into the sunken channel and constitutes the second coupling configuration (figure 5), with two parallel side edges of the photoelectric panel being inserted into the two grooved guides, the side edges constituting the opposite coupling ends (figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Melchior teaches the photoelectric panel comprises support for at least two electric conducting cables (col. 2, lines 3-7) but does not specifically disclose they are connected to two opposite edges of the photoelectric panel, at least part of the two electric conducting cables extends in the longitudinal direction of the grooved guides, over the back of the photoelectric panel. However, official notice is taken that it is well known in the art that cables are commonly routed in conjunction with the back of photovoltaic panels. The use of a routing a cable is considered a routine design choice that would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate two electric conducting cables connected to two opposite edges of the photoelectric panel, at least part of the two electric conducting cables extends in the longitudinal direction of the grooved guides, over the back of the photoelectric panel in order to provide optimal cable routing for the photovoltaic electricity to be directed, and have the cables stored in a discreet location over the back of the panel, so as not to interference with the sunlight reaching the panel surface.
Regarding claim 16, the figure 5 embodiment of Melchior does not specifically disclose the second coupling configuration comprises one or more flanges adhered to the back of the photoelectric panel, said one or more flanges being inserted into both grooved guides, the one or more flanges constituting the opposite coupling ends, with the assembly of the one or more flanges and the side edge of the photoelectric panel constituting the opposite coupling ends.
The figure 7 embodiment of Melchior teaches the second coupling configuration comprises one or more flanges (21) adhered to the back of the photoelectric panel (figure 7), said one or more flanges being inserted into both grooved guides (figure 7), the one or more flanges constituting the opposite coupling ends, with the assembly of the one or more flanges and the side edge of the photoelectric panel constituting the opposite coupling ends (figure 7).
Therefore, from the teaching of the figure 7 embodiment of Melchior, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the figure 5 embodiment of Melchior to include one or more flanges adhered to the back of the photoelectric panel, said one or more flanges being inserted into both grooved guides, the one or more flanges constituting the opposite coupling ends, with the assembly of the one or more flanges and the side edge of the photoelectric panel constituting the opposite coupling ends, as taught by the teaching of the figure 7, in order to further secure the photovoltaic panel within the tile to prevent slippage, while minimizing additional installation tooling, to facilitate assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Melchior teaches the photoelectric panel is a photovoltaic generator panel (photovoltaic solar cells; abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Melchior teaches the rigid support is a ceramic panel or block (clay; col. 3, lines 20-25).
Claim(s) 7 and 9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melchior (U.S. Patent No. 5776262 A) in view of Liang (CN 113872502 A), and further in view of Pschunder (DE 3419299 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Melchior does not specifically disclose the retainer device comprises one or more wedges inserted between the photoelectric panel and the bottom of the sunken channel.
Pschunder discloses a photovoltaic assembly (figure 3) wherein the retainer device comprises one or more wedges (6) inserted between the photoelectric panel and the bottom of the sunken channel (figure 3).
Therefore, from the teaching of Pschunder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified photovoltaic tile assembly of Melchior such that the retainer device comprises one or more wedges inserted between the photoelectric panel and the bottom of the sunken channel, as taught by Pschunder, in order to further secure the photovoltaic panel at a desired angle, for maximizing solar potential, for greater energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Pschunder in the combination discloses each wedge includes a seating flange (top flange of 6) on which there rests a transverse edge of the photoelectric panel located between the grooved guides (in the combination, it is understood a transverse edge of the photoelectric panel located between the grooved guides would rest).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to photovoltaic tiles in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights