DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed June 25, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-8, 10-14 and 16-18 are pending. Claims 1-8, 10-14 and 16-18 stand rejected as set forth below.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “including extruded concrete or clay” is indefinite as it is unclear if it is required as concrete or clay are already previously required and “extruded” is towards a method of forming the tile and the claim is directed towards a tile.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear how many solar panel elements are required, there appear to be four different ranges that don’t all overlap (101 would be at least two but fall out of the ranges encompassed by the “or’s”. For the purpose of this office action the examiner assumes “at least two solar panel elements”
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deVries et al. (US Pub 2019/0245478) (hereinafter deVries) in view of Gou et al. (US Pub 2012/0006397) (hereinafter Gou).
In regard to Claim 1, deVries discloses a roof tile wherein the roof tile comprises a base element (600) (Fig 6), wherein the roof tile comprises a group of solar panel elements (at 606, 608) [0060] (Fig 6), wherein the roof tile comprises a profiled shape section which comprises solar panel elements (Fig 6), wherein the profiled shape section allows for different angles of reception of direct and indirect sunrays within the roof tile (Fig 7a), and wherein each individual solar panel element is flat (Fig 6) [0060]. deVries does not specifically disclose a transparent top element with the solar panel elements between the top element and the base element and the base element as concrete or clay.
Gou teaches a base element (10) and a transparent top element (40), wherein the solar panel elements are comprised between the top element and the base element, under or within the top element (Fig 1) [0018] and the base element comprises concrete or clay (Fig 1) [0013]. 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 tile of deVries to include a transparent top element to sandwich the PV panel with the concrete or clay base element as taught by Gou, in order to protect the PV panel while allowing light to pass through as well as allowing the roof tile to resemble a terra cotta tile as desired by deVries.
In regard to Claim 2, deVries discloses the roof tile as described above, wherein the group of solar panel elements comprises silicon (abstract).
In regard to Claim 3, deVries discloses the roof tile as described above, but does not disclose an intermediate element. Gou teaches at least one intermediate element (20) between the top element (40) and the base element (10) (Fig 1) [0013]. 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 tile of deVries to include an intermediate layer as taught by Gou in order to protect the components of the solar cell.
In regard to Claim 4, as best understood by the examiner, deVries in view of Gou discloses the roof tile as described above, comprising at least one interlocking section (deVries; 604, 605), wherein the interlocking section comprises concrete or clay (Gou; [0013]).
In regard to Claim 5, as best understood by the examiner, deVries discloses the roof tile as described above, wherein the group of solar panel elements comprises at least two solar panel elements (Fig 6f).
In regard to Claim 6, deVries discloses the roof tile as described above, wherein the roof tile comprises a plurality of rows of solar panel elements being arranged along the x-direction of the roof tile, wherein the solar panel elements in each row are electrically connected in parallel and wherein the plurality of rows of solar panel elements are electrically connected in series, or wherein the roof tile comprises a plurality of columns of solar panel elements being arranged along the y-direction of the roof tile, wherein the solar panel elements in each column are electrically connected in series and wherein the plurality of columns of solar panel elements are electrically connected in parallel [0051, 0075, 0082].
In regard to Claim 8, Gou in the combination discloses the roof tile as described above, wherein the base element (10) and the top element (40) are attached together and that two elements as attached together provide the necessary strength to function as a roof tile [0034]. Gou does not specifically state that the base element and top element do not have the strength for use as a roof tile independently. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the top element individually would not have the strength for use as a roof tile itself, since it is merely formed as a protecting film and as it is well known in the art that a protective film alone does not have the strength to effectively be used as a roof tile.
In regard to Claim 10, deVries discloses the roof tile as described above, comprising a plurality of roof tiles (Fig 1).
In regard to Claim 11, deVries discloses a method for producing a roof tile, comprising the steps of: providing a base element (600) (Fig 6), providing solar panel elements (at 606, 608) [0060] (Fig 6), wherein the roof tile is arranged such that the roof tile provides a profiled shape section (Fig 6), wherein each individual solar panel element is flat (Fig 6) [0060]. deVries does not specifically disclose a transparent top element with the solar panel elements between the top element and the base element and the base element as concrete or clay.
Gou teaches providing a base element (10) and a transparent top element (40), wherein the solar panel elements are comprised between the top element and the base element, under or within the top element (Fig 1) [0018], attaching the top element to the base element and wherein the base element comprises concrete or clay (Fig 1) [0013]. 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 tile of deVries to include a transparent top element to sandwich the PV panel with the concrete or clay base element as taught by Gou, in order to protect the PV panel while allowing light to pass through as well as allowing the roof tile to resemble a terra cotta tile as desired by deVries.
In regard to Claim 13, Gou in the combination discloses the method for producing a roof tile as described above, wherein the base element (curved substrate 10) comprises concrete (Fig 1) [0013], further comprising a step of hardening the concrete base element with the top element and the solar panels attached, thus providing a complete roof tile with inbuilt solar panel [0034].
In regard to Claim 14, Gou in the combination discloses the method for producing a roof tile as described above, wherein there is a base element (10). Gou does not specifically state that the base element must be extruded or molded. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extrude or mold the base element of deVries in view of Gou, as concrete elements are typically created by extrusion or molding.
In regard to Claim 18, Gou in the combination discloses the roof tile as described above, wherein, wherein the base element comprises extruded concrete or clay (Gou; [0013]).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deVries in view of Gou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Richards (US Pub 2023/0238913).
In regard to Claim 7, deVries discloses the roof tile as described above, but does not disclose a connection box or a bypass diode. Richards discloses wherein a connection box (terminals 212) for output of electricity from the solar panel elements is positioned at one end of the roof tile, such that no hole in the base element of the roof tile is needed for wiring to the solar panel elements, wherein the connection box comprises a bypass diode (bypass diode) coupled to overcome negative effects from shading, damages or other malfunction of the roof tile (Fig 26). 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 roof tile of deVries to include a connection box with a bypass diode as taught by Richards, in order to provide a pathway for electrical current to bypass the at least one photovoltaic cell in the case that one of the cells in faulty.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deVries in view of Gou as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Birch (GB 2582829).
In regard to Claim 12, Gou in the combination discloses the method as described above, but does not disclose glue, rivets, screws, or bolts. Birch discloses wherein the step of attaching the top element to the base element comprises attaching the top element to the base element by glue, rivets, screws, bolts (fastening member e.g. screw or nail), or by insertion of the top element into recesses formed in the base element or vice versa [page 15, lines 25-27]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the top element to the base element of Gou with the use of screws or nails as taught by Birch, in order to securely attach the top element to the base element.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deVries in view of Gou as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Flaherty et al. (US Pub 2008/0000174) (hereinafter Flaherty).
In regard to Claims 16 and 17, Gou in the combination discloses the roof tile as described above, but does not specifically disclose the top element as tempered glass. Flaherty teaches a top element formed of tempered glass [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the tope element of deVries in view of Gou out of tempered glass as taught by Flaherty, since as Flaherty states in paragraph 0078 that it will protect the panel from falling objects and debris.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Mattei whose telephone number is (571)270-3238. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights