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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on the 18/955,667 application filed on 04/21/2025.
Claims 8-27 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure does not provide support for the limitation “a fold line at the attached upper edge of the first layer and upper edge of the second layer, and wherein the second layer is movable between a first portion, in which the second layer is distal from the first layer, and a second position, in which the second layer overlays the first layer” as claimed. The embodiment in figs. 4A-4B of the originally filed disclosure discloses a fold line 450 between two first side 412 and second side 418 of a single photovoltaic module 410. Neither the first side 412 or the second side 418 has its own distinct “upper edge” since they are part of a continuous layer. In other words, in an embodiment where a fold line exists, there are no structures that are the structural equivalence to the claimed upper edge of the first and second layer in the claimed manner.
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure does not support the limitation “wherein the first photovoltaic portion and the second photovoltaic portion of the second photovoltaic module overlays the second headlap portion of the first photovoltaic module’. The Applicants do not provide any explanation as to how the aforementioned limitation is supported by the originally filed disclosure.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-11, 13-15, 18-23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by McCaskill et al. (US 2005/0178429).
Addressing claims 8 and 26, McCaskill discloses a system (fig. 3), comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic modules (310g+310F, 310E+310D and 310C+310B constitute three photovoltaic modules) installed on a roof deck (Abstract),
wherein each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules (310g+310F is used as example) includes
a first layer (membrane 310g) having a first headlap portion (the portion of the membrane 310g that is not covered by the solar elements 320), a first photovoltaic portion (the portion that are covered by the solar elements 320), and wherein the first photovoltaic portion includes a first plurality of solar cells 320, and
a second layer (membrane 310F) having a second headlap portion (the portion of the membrane 310F that is not covered by the solar elements 320), a second photovoltaic portion (the portion covered by the solar elements 320), and wherein the second photovoltaic portion includes a second plurality of solar cells 320, and
wherein the second layer overlay the first layer (fig. 4), and wherein the first plurality of solar cell is adjacent to the second plurality of solar cells (annotated fig. 4 shows the first plurality of solar cell is adjacent to the second plurality of solar cells).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Addressing claims 9-10, annotated fig. 4 above shows the first plurality of solar cells and the second plurality of solar cells are in a row and are alternately located in a row.
Addressing claim 11, fig. 3 shows that the first layer 310G and the second layer 310F each has a respective upper edge that are attached to each other because the first and second layers are attached to each other.
Addressing claim 13, figs. 3-4 show the second photovoltaic portion overlays the first headlap portion.
Addressing claims 14-15 and 18, annotated fig. 4 below shows the first plurality of solar cells are in a first row and the second plurality of solar cells are in a second row that is above the first row. Annotated fig. 4 further shows the first row and the second row extend parallel to and at different distances from the lower edge of the photovoltaic module.
PNG
media_image2.png
638
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Addressing claims 19-21, fig. 2 and paragraph [0030] discloses the first layer includes topside interconnects 250 as the structural equivalence to the claimed first electrical connector and the second layer includes underside electrical interconnects 280 as the claimed second electrical connector that overlays and mechanically and electrically contacts the first electrical connector. The first electrical connector 250 is on the portion of the first layer that is not covered by the solar cells, which corresponds to the claimed headlap portion and the second electrical connector 280 is positioned immediately underneath the solar cell of the second layer or the claimed second photovoltaic portion of the second layer.
Addressing claim 22, paragraph [0020] discloses the membrane, which is the claimed first layer is made of atactic polypropylene that qualifies it as thermoplastic polyolefin.
Addressing claim 23, paragraph [0040] discloses an underlayment is provided individually for each membrane members 310A-310G before the members are overlapped. Paragraph [0011 and 0024] disclose the underlayment has adhesive property for adhering the membranes in the overlapping area.
Addressing claim 25, fig. 3 shows layer 310G and layer 310F forming the first photovoltaic module and layer 310E and layer 310D forming the second photovoltaic module, wherein the second photovoltaic module overlays the first photovoltaic module (fig. 4), wherein the first photovoltaic portion and the second photovoltaic portion of the second photovoltaic module overlays the second headlap portion of the first photovoltaic module (fig. 4).
Claim(s) 8-9, 11, 13, 16-17, 19-21 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hall et al. (US 2018/0183382).
Addressing claims 8-9 and 26, Hall discloses a system, comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic modules (the modules in fig. 2B) installed on a roof deck (fig. 5),
wherein each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes
a first layer (the solar shingle) having a first headlap portion (annotated fig. 1 below), a first photovoltaic portion (annotated fig. 1), and wherein the first photovoltaic portion includes a first plurality of solar cells 126, and
a second layer (the additional solar shingle in figs. 2A-2B) having a second headlap portion (annotated fig. 1), a second photovoltaic portion (annotated fig. 1), and wherein the second photovoltaic portion includes a second plurality of solar cells 126, and
wherein the second layer overlays the first layer (fig. 2B), and wherein the first plurality of solar is adjacent to the second plurality of solar cells (fig. 2B) and arranged in a row.
PNG
media_image3.png
452
914
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 11, fig. 2B shows the first and second layers include their respective upper edges that are attached to each other.
Addressing claim 13, fig. 2B shows the second photovoltaic portion (of the second shingle or second layer situated on the left side) overlays the first headlap portion (the headlap portion of the first shingle or first layer situated on the right side).
Addressing claims 16-17, fig. 2B shows the first and second plurality of solar cells is separated from one another by a first gap and a second gap (the distance between the solar cells 126 shown in fig. 1, respectively, that is smaller than the first width and the second width, respectively, of each of the first and second plurality of solar cells 126, respectively.
Addressing claims 19-20, figs. 1-2B show the first layer (the solar shingle on the right side) includes a first electrical connector 130 on the upper surface, wherein the second layer (the solar shingle on the left side) includes a second electrical connector 132 on the lower surface, and wherein the second electrical connector overlays and mechanically and electrically contacts the first electrical connector (fig. 2B).
Addressing claim 21, annotated fig. 1 above shows the first electrical connector 130 is on the first headlap portion and the second electrical connector 132 is on the photovoltaic portion.
Addressing claim 23, paragraph [0048] discloses the channel 120 of the headlap portion includes adhesive attachment of adjacent solar shingle and paragraph [0051] discloses the overlap area 205 are adhesively connected together.
Addressing claim 25, annotated fig. 10 shows the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes a first photovoltaic module and a second photovoltaic module, wherein the second photovoltaic module overlays the first photovoltaic module, wherein the first photovoltaic portion and the second photovoltaic portion of the second photovoltaic module overlays the second headlap portion of the first photovoltaic module.
PNG
media_image4.png
436
886
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 27, Hall discloses a method, comprising “obtaining a plurality of photovoltaic modules … wherein the first plurality of solar cell is adjacent to the second plurality of solar cells” (please see the rejection of claim 8 above);
installing a first photovoltaic module of the plurality of photovoltaic modules on a roof deck (fig. 5 and 10),
installing a second photovoltaic module of the plurality of photovoltaic modules on the roof deck (fig. 5 and 10), and
wherein the first photovoltaic portion and the second photovoltaic portion of the second photovoltaic module overlays the second headlap portion of the first photovoltaic module (annotated fig. 10 and see the rejection of claim 25 above).
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-12, 16-17, 19, 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khouri et al. (US 2008/0314434).
Addressing claims 8 and 26, Khouri discloses a system, comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic modules (PV panels 10, [0041]) installed on a roof deck [0042],
wherein each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules 10 (figs. 8-10, annotated fig. 8) includes:
a first layer (see annotated fig. 8) having a first headlap portion (the portion of the membrane 12 of the first layer that is not covered by the PV module 14b), a first photovoltaic portion 14b, and wherein the first photovoltaic portion includes a first plurality of solar cells 17 (fig. 5, [0026]), and
a second layer (annotated fig. 8) having a second headlap portion (the portion of the membrane 12 of the second layer that is not covered by the PV module 14a), a first photovoltaic portion 14a, and wherein the second photovoltaic portion includes a plurality of solar cells 17 (fig. 5, [0026]), and
wherein the second layer overlays the first layer (fig. 10), and
wherein the first plurality of solar cells is adjacent to the second plurality of solar cells (fig. 10).
PNG
media_image5.png
614
906
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 9, fig. 8 shows the first plurality of solar cells and the second plurality of solar cells are in a row.
Addressing claims 11-12, annotated fig. 8 below shows the claimed first and second upper edge that are attached at a fold line A-A, and wherein the second layer is movable between a first position, in which the second layer is distal from the first layer (fig. 8) and a second position, in which the second layer overlays the first layer (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
543
906
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Addressing claims 16-17, fig. 5 shows the gap between the adjacent solar cells 17 is smaller than the width of the solar cells.
Addressing claim 19, fig. 10 shows the first and second layers include their respective electrical connectors with the second electrical connector positioned above the first electrical connector that constitutes the second electrical connector overlays the first electrical connector. The first and second electrical connectors are mechanically and electrically contacts each other via the wire 20.
Addressing claim 22, paragraph [0037] discloses the claimed materials.
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 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) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCaskill et al. (US 2005/0178429) in view of Drake (US 2012/0060902).
Addressing claim 24, McCaskill is silent regarding the limitation of current claim.
Drake discloses a system comprising a plurality of photovoltaic modules being installed on the roof deck by a plurality of fasteners 600 through the headlap portion 140 (fig. 6).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of McCaskill with the known technique of installing the photovoltaic modules to the roof deck via the fasteners through the headlap portion as disclosed by Drake in order to obtain the predictable result of securing the photovoltaic modules to the roof deck (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US 2018/0183382) in view of Drake (US 2012/0060902).
Addressing claim 24, Hall is silent regarding the limitation of current claim.
Drake discloses a system comprising a plurality of photovoltaic modules being installed on the roof deck by a plurality of fasteners 600 through the headlap portion 140 (fig. 6).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of Hall with the known technique of installing the photovoltaic modules to the roof deck via the fasteners through the headlap portion as disclosed by Drake in order to obtain the predictable result of securing the photovoltaic modules to the roof deck (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khouri et al. (US 2008/0314434) in view of Drake (US 2012/0060902).
Addressing claim 24, Khouri is silent regarding the limitation of current claim.
Drake discloses a system comprising a plurality of photovoltaic modules being installed on the roof deck by a plurality of fasteners 600 through the headlap portion 140 (fig. 6).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of Khouri with the known technique of installing the photovoltaic modules to the roof deck via the fasteners through the headlap portion as disclosed by Drake in order to obtain the predictable result of securing the photovoltaic modules to the roof deck (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 11/13/2025