DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 3-7 and 19 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 3 recites “an identical predetermined height” in the third line. Claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, also recited “an identical predetermined height”. It is unclear if the recitation of “an identical predetermined height” in claim 3 is a reference to, or distinct from, the previously established metric. Claims 4-7 are also rejected based on their dependence from claim 3.
Claim 4 recites “said separation space”. Claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, recited “at least one separation space”; therefore claim 3 establishes that more than one separation space may be present. The recitation of “said separation space” in claim 4 renders the claim indefinite, as the scope of the claims allow more than one separation space to be present. Claims 5-7 are also rejected based on their dependence from claim 4.
Claim 7 recites “any additional accessories”. This phrase is indefinite, even when read in light of the instant disclosure. In other words, the disclosure does not define the scope of “any additional accessories”. Claim 19 is also rejected based on its dependence from claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102021119661A1 to Brockelmann (machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claim 1, Brockelmann teaches a hybrid type solar panel 10 (top of p. 3 of translation describes photovoltaic module function and heated air provision) characterized in that it comprises a basic structure 12 (Figs. 1, 2) with a rectangular shape comprising
A first side 14b comprising a first upper shelf (Fig. 3 specifically shows that 14b has a horizontally extending portion that supports layer 18, p. 5, 6 of translation)
A second side 14a opposite to the first side and comprising a second upper shelf (Fig. 3 shows 14a with a horizontally extending portion also supporting 18)
Wherein
The first and second side 14b, 14a are of different heights (best seen in Figs. 1, 2b)
The first and second upper shelves are positioned, in use, at different heights as to a horizontal reference plane (Fig. 5 shows a cross-section of a plane formed by adjacent tubes 30), in a predetermined non-zero range (both heights extend upward from the horizontal reference plane), so that the two upper shelves are arranged to form among each other a slanting support surface for a protective glass 18.
Per claim 8, Brockelmann teaches the limitations of claim 1. In case of side by side mounting (Fig. 5), in use, of a first hybrid panel 10 and of least a second hybrid panel 10, the first shelf of the first side 14b is configured to overhang the second shelf of the second side 14a, when adjacent, by a predetermined height (Fig. 5 shows that the predetermined height must be at least the thickness of layer 18), and to create a tile shaped slide (Fig. 4). The limitation that the slide is for rainwater precipitations or for any dirt deposited, over time, on the protective glass of each hybrid type solar panel is an intended use limitation. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. It is expected that the hybrid type solar panel is capable of performing this intended use because it has the claimed structure. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0194557 to Williams.
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches a hybrid type solar panel (Figs. 7, 8) characterized in that it comprises a basic structure 28/30/32/34 with a rectangular shape (¶0057, 0061, 0062) comprising
A first side (element 28 on the right of Fig. 7) comprising a first upper shelf 42
A second side (28 on the left of Fig. 7) opposite to the first side and comprising a second supper shelf 42 (obscured in Fig. 7)
Wherein
The first and second side are of different heights (Fig. 10 shows a hybrid type solar panel in use, wherein one side on the right is at a higher elevation than the opposite side, ¶0072)
The first and second upper shelves 42 are positioned, in use, at different heights as to a horizontal reference plane (Fig. 10 is a perspective view, elements 46, 48 are situated on a horizontal plane which is not specifically illustrated), in a predetermined non-zero range (each shelf 42 is necessarily above the plane by a non-zero amount), so that the two upper shelves are arranged to form among each other a slanting support surface for a protective glass 10.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB2448920 to Dicks (included in Applicant’s IDS filed 11/7/2024).
Regarding claim 12, Dicks teaches a hybrid type solar panel 10 (all of P2-P10 is relevant, specific passages are cited as necessary) characterized in that it comprises a structure arranged to make a photovoltaic panel 24 a thermal panel (“heating chamber” 14), a watertight roof (P9/L21-25), an electrical storage 30, all integrated into a basic structure (“body of the tile” in the cited text).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0152320 to Aguglio.
Regarding claims 14, Aguglio teaches a house roof (¶0089-0091) comprising, mounted side by side, a plurality of hybrid type solar panels 10 (Figs. 1b, 2b) comprising respective basic structures 21 (¶0027-0034), characterized in that each basic structure comprises, on two opposite sides of different heights (portion 32c extends higher than portion 31b), respective supports with inverted “U” profile (see Marked-up Fig. 2B below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inverted “U” profile)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
374
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The inverted “U” profiles are part of elements 36, which are specifically configured for allowing fastening the solar panels, by way of screws (¶0050-0054). While the embodiment of Fig. 2B is not explicitly recited as being fastened to roof traverses, a person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage such a fastening connection, as forming a house roof from a plurality of hybrid type solar panels, specifically to create a self-supporting watertight roof (¶0047, 0089, 0093), is clearly described. MPEP §2131.02.III.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockelmann as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 9, Brockelmann teaches the limitations of claim 8. The reference teaches that the side by side mounting is carried out, in use, with a slant (best seen in Fig. 5). Brockelmann specifically teaches that the slant is preferable for overlap of adjacent panels to form a continuous and closed surface (bottom p. 3 through top p. 4, middle p. 5 through p. 6 of translation). A skilled artisan would understand that the difference in height between the first side 14b and the second side 14a, as well as the degree of the slant, will therefore be determined by the thickness of the material of the basic structure and the protective glass 18. Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the difference and height and the slant according to the necessary clearances for producing a closed surface.
A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockelmann as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Brockelmann teaches the limitations of claim 1. The reference teaches that the side by side mounting is carried out, in use, with a slant with respect to the horizontal reference plane (best seen in Fig. 5). Brockelmann specifically teaches that the slant is preferable for overlap of adjacent panels to form a continuous and closed surface (bottom p. 3 through top p. 4, middle p. 5 through p. 6 of translation). A skilled artisan would understand that the degree of the slant will therefore be determined by the thickness of the material of the basic structure and the protective glass 18. Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the angle of the slanting support surface with respect to the horizontal reference plane to the necessary clearances for producing a closed surface.
A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 20170133974 to Safir.
Regarding claims 2, Williams teaches the limitations of claim 1. The basic structure of Williams further comprises a front face 36 configured to provide a fixing area on which to fix a photovoltaic panel 12 (¶0060), the first upper shelf 42 and the second upper shelf 42 being raised as to the front face by an identical predetermined height (MPEP §2125). The PV panel is described as comprising PV cells (¶0006-0010), but is not described as a set of photovoltaic strings. Safir teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the PV cells of a panel as a set of photovoltaic strings in order to achieve a desired power output (¶0014, 0018-0022, 0024).
Per claim 3, modified-Williams teaches the limitations of claim 2. The first upper shelf 42 and the second upper shelf 42 are raised as to the front face 36 by an identical predetermined height arranged for creating a separation space 24 comprising an air chamber between the front face and the protective glass 10 (¶0081). The limitation that the air chamber is arranged for reducing the thermal dispersions of the hybrid panel toward the outside is an intended use limitation. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. It is expected that the structure taught by the combination of references is capable of performing such an intended use as it has the claimed structure. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Per claim 4, modified-Williams teaches the limitations of claim 3. Williams teaches that the separation space further houses, between the front face 36 and the protective glass 10, the photovoltaic panel 12, which comprises photovoltaic strings, per Safir. Safir also teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the photovoltaic panel to comprises one or more layers of insulating material in order to reduce escape of thermal heat (¶0040).
Per claim 5, modified-Williams teaches the limitations of claim 4. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the slanting support surface is angled as to the horizontal reference plane at least in order to allow for heat convection away from the photovoltaic panel (¶0071, 0072, 0075). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to incline the slanting support surface at an angle sufficient to allow for optimal heat convection.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams and Safir as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2018/0274806 to Arndt.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified-Williams teaches the limitations of claim 5. Williams teaches that the basic structure further comprises, in a lower area thereof and on opposite sides, two respective shelves 40 configured to seat an insulation panel 18 (Fig. 7, ¶0054, 0055, 0058-0060). Williams also teaches that the electrical output from the PV panel 12 is provided to an electrical storage (¶0027), but does not specifically teach that the lower area seats an electrical storage and a container for electronic components. Arndt teaches a similar hybrid type solar panel, and that a basic structure seats, at an analogous lower area, an electrical storage (22 of Fig. 4) and a container for electric components (8). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to seat an electrical storage and container for electric components in the lower area of the basic structure of modified-Williams so that the hybrid type solar panel may be a stand-alone device (¶0017, 0018).
Williams’ basic structure further comprises, in the lower area thereof, a plurality of raceways 32/34 (Figs. 9) made along an entire length of the solar panel, the raceways being configured to anchor a hydraulic manifold 54 (¶0075), the insulation panel 18, and suitable for anchoring electrical connections (¶0070). While Williams does not specifically teach that the raceways 32/34 anchor the container for electrical components, the electrical storage, an electrical manifold and any additional accessories, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the raceways for this purpose, as Arndt teaches that such elements are commonly used for anchoring those elements (the electrical storage 22, container for electrical components 8, and associated wires are anchored to raceway 5 at 4 in Figs. 3, 4, ¶0024, 0039, 0088).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, modified-Williams teaches the limitations of claim 1. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the slanting support surface is angled as to the horizontal reference plane at least in order to allow for heat convection away from the photovoltaic panel (¶0071, 0072, 0075). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to incline the slanting support surface at an angle sufficient to allow for optimal heat convection.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arndt.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, modified-Williams teaches the limitations of claim 1. Williams teaches that the basic structure further comprises, in a lower area thereof and on opposite sides, two respective shelves 40 configured to seat an insulation panel 18 (Fig. 7, ¶0054, 0055, 0058-0060). Williams also teaches that the electrical output from the PV panel 12 is provided to an electrical storage (¶0027), but does not specifically teach that the lower area seats an electrical storage and a container for electronic components. Arndt teaches a similar hybrid type solar panel, and that a basic structure seats, at an analogous lower area, an electrical storage (22 of Fig. 4) and a container for electric components (8). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to seat an electrical storage and container for electric components in the lower area of the basic structure of modified-Williams so that the hybrid type solar panel may be a stand-alone device (¶0017, 0018).
Williams’ basic structure further comprises, in the lower area thereof, a plurality of raceways 32/34 (Figs. 9) made along an entire length of the solar panel, the raceways being configured to anchor a hydraulic manifold 54 (¶0075), the insulation panel 18, and suitable for anchoring electrical connections (¶0070). While Williams does not specifically teach that the raceways 32/34 anchor the container for electrical components, the electrical storage, an electrical manifold and any additional accessories, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the raceways for this purpose, as Arndt teaches that such elements are commonly used for anchoring those elements (the electrical storage 22, container for electrical components 8, and associated wires are anchored to raceway 5 at 4 in Figs. 3, 4, ¶0024, 0039, 0088).
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguglio, and further in view of Williams.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, Aguglio teaches a hybrid type solar panel 10 (Figs. 1b, 2b) characterized in that it comprises a basic structure 21 (¶0027-0034) with a rectangular shape (MPEP §2125), comprising
A first side (see Marked-up Fig. 2b directly below) comprising a first upper shelf 31b (¶0044, 0045)
A second side, opposite to the first side and comprising a second upper shelf 32b
Wherein
The first and second upper shelves 31b, 32b are positioned, in use, so that two upper shelves are arranged to form among each other a support surface for a protective glass 43 (¶0028, 0043).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second side, comprising upper shelf 32b)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First side, comprising upper shelf 31b)]
PNG
media_image2.png
480
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The two upper shelves of the hybrid solar panel 10 are illustrated, in the frame of Fig. 2b, as arranged to form a slanting support surface (MPEP §2125). Further, Aguglio teaches that the panel 10 of that invention forms a portion of a roof (¶0089-0091), but does not explicitly teach that the first and second side are of different heights, so that the first and second upper shelves are positioned, in use, at different heights as to a horizontal reference plane, in a predetermined non-zero range. Williams teaches a similar hybrid type solar panel (10 of Fig. 11), and that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a similar first and second side to be of different heights when it is part of a roof (¶0071). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). A skilled artisan would therefore understand that the two upper shelves of the solar panel of modified-Aguglio are therefore positioned at different heights as to a horizontal reference plane, in a non-zero range.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified-Aguglio teaches the limitations of claim 1. Aguglio teaches, in a case of side by side mounting, in use, of a first hybrid panel and of a second hybrid panel, the side by side hybrid type solar panels are configured to create a house roof (¶0089-0091) comprising a plurality of side by side hybrid type solar panels (Figs. 1b, 2b) wherein each basic structure 21 (¶0027-0034) comprises, on the two opposite sides of different height (as shown in Marked-up Fig. 2 directly above), respective supports with inverted “U” profile (see Marked-up Fig. 2B directly below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inverted “U” profile)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
374
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The inverted “U” profiles are part of elements 36, which are specifically configured for allowing fastening the solar panels, by way of screws (¶0050-0054). While the embodiment of Fig. 2B is not explicitly recited as being fastened to roof traverses, a person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage such a fastening connection, as forming a house roof from a plurality of hybrid type solar panels, specifically to create a self-supporting watertight roof (¶0047, 0089, 0093), is clearly described. MPEP §2131.02.III.
Regarding claim 11, Aguglio teaches the limitations of claim 10. Each basic structure 21 of Aguglio comprises a side wall 39a (Fig. 1b, ¶0062-0067) associated to the highest side (side wall 39a extends from the highest side to the lowest side). It is unclear if a seat for receiving a lip shaped gasket is arranged in the side wall 39a. However, other embodiments of such a side wall (such as shown in Figs. 1a, 3 of Aguglio) clearly teach that the side wall seats a lip shaped gasket (38a, 38b) within to ensure water-tightness (¶0067-0069, 0074, 0075). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange a seat for receiving a lip shaped gasket in the side wall to ensure water-tightness.
The limitation that the gasket is configured to ensure, in use, a barrier to water infiltrations between the panels mounted side by side and to ensure the creation of a completely watertight self-supporting surface is an intended use limitation. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. It is expected that the hybrid type solar panel is capable of performing this intended use because it has the claimed structure. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, and further in view of Arndt.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Williams teaches a hybrid type solar panel (Figs. 7, 8) characterized in that it comprises a structure arranged to make a photovoltaic panel 12 (¶0060), a thermal panel (Figs. 9, ¶0075), a watertight roof (Fig. 11, ¶0069 teaches that water is excluded to avoid leaks, ¶0071; ¶0054, 0055, 0058-0060, 0070 teach that all elements are airtight), all integrated into a basic structure. The basic structure further comprises, in a lower area thereof and on opposite sides, two respective shelves 40 configured to seat an insulation panel 18. Williams also teaches that the electrical output from the PV panel 12 is provided to an electrical storage (¶0027), but does not specifically teach that the lower area seats an electrical storage and a container for electronic components. Arndt teaches a similar hybrid type solar panel, and that a basic structure seats, at an analogous lower area, an electrical storage (22 of Fig. 4) and a container for electric components (8). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to seat an electrical storage and container for electric components in the lower area of the basic structure of modified-Williams so that the hybrid type solar panel may be a stand-alone device (¶0017, 0018).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguglio as applied to claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 15, Aguglio teaches the limitations of claim 14. Each basic structure 21 comprises a side wall 39a (Fig. 1b, ¶0062-0067) associated to the highest side (side wall 39a extends from the highest side to the lowest side). It is unclear if a seat for receiving a lip shaped gasket is arranged in the side wall 39a. However, other embodiments of such a side wall (such as shown in Figs. 1a, 3) clearly teach that the side wall seats a lip shaped gasket (38a, 38b) within to ensure water-tightness (¶0067-0069, 0074, 0075). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange a seat for receiving a lip shaped gasket in the side wall to ensure water-tightness.
The limitation that the gasket is configured to ensure, in use, a barrier to water infiltrations between the panels mounted side by side and to ensure the creation of a completely watertight self-supporting surface is an intended use limitation. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. It is expected that the hybrid type solar panel is capable of performing this intended use because it has the claimed structure. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE102014111926A1 (machine translation also cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726