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 .
Response to Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on August 5th, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED.
The previous rejection of Bunea in view of Sirski has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s persuasive arguments.
A new grounds of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JEFFREY T BARTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunea et al. (WO 2022/051593 A1) in view of Pollard (US 2010/0123048 A1). Citations below are made to Bunea et al. (US 2023/0283054 A1) which corresponds to the national stage of this application, and is therefore a translation thereof.
In view of Claim 1, Bunea et al. teaches a system (Figure 4-5), comprising: a roof deck (Figure 4-5, #200 & Paragraph 0090);
at least one photovoltaic module installed on the roof deck (Figure 4-5, #10 & Paragraph 0090); wherein the at least one photovoltaic module comprises a first photovoltaic module (Figure 4-5, #10 & Paragraph 0090 – there can be a plurality of these shingles present on the roof deck);
wherein each photovoltaic module includes: a backsheet composed of a polymer (Paragraph 0087) that includes a first end (Figure 2A, #24) and a second end opposite the first end (Figure 2A, #26 & Paragraph 0065), and an upper surface (Fig. 2A, the surface area of the flaps #54/#56);
a baseplate that can be located on the upper surface of the backsheet at the first end, wherein the baseplate includes an upper surface (Fig. 3D, #100 – Paragraph 0111 – the at least one wireway overlaps each of the flaps #54/#56);
Annotated Bunea et al. Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
515
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the baseplate is composed of a first material (Paragraph 0127 – composed of polyethylene or aluminum);
a first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E, below);
a first electrical connector in electrical connection with the first photovoltaic module, and wherein the first electrical connector is located on the first support of the first photovoltaic module (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E, below).
The first support can be seen in cross-section of the baseplate, which is mapped to Bunea et al. wireway 100. The “first support” is considered the electrical stand-offs that protrude from the bottom of the baseplate and keep the wires clear of the bottom surface of the baseplate (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D-E, below). Thus, this isn’t a theory, Bunea et al. indeed shows a first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate.
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image2.png
811
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. discloses that there are a plurality of support members covering the first electrical connector (Figure 8, #110 – the lid covers the jumper module portion, or any of the wiring portions can be covered by the lid 110 – Paragraph 0116 & See Figs. 12A-D, #110 covers the electrical connectors of the jumper module), the lid comprises a plurality of support members that can be on the base plate and support the electrical connectors so that they are out of contact with the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module (Figure 14D, all of the electrical wiring connectors are supported above the base plate via the plurality of support members – Paragraph 0116, 0353-0356 & See Fig. 51/61, #1332).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image3.png
661
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. teaches that the first electrical connector can be separated from the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module by a gap that can range from between 1-5 mm and overlaps 3 mm (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D, below & Paragraph 0125).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D
PNG
media_image4.png
326
669
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. is silent on the material of the first support such that the second material is different than the first material, wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K.
Pollard discloses a support (Figs. 1-4, #16) that comprises a second material that is different than the first material (Paragraph 0030, 0033 discloses the support comprises polymers such as polyimides - Paragraph 0034 - discloses composite materials in the sense that the polymers can have “fillers” , Paragraph 0044 discloses this support can be composed of silicone), these images (Figs. 1-4) also depict how this “support is located on and protruding upwardly from an upper surface of a baseplate” (Figs. 1-4, the bottom surface of the support rests on housing – Paragraph 0004), and the use of these types of structures can decrease wear on wires (Paragraph 0023), provides strengths to a system (Paragraph 0004) while helping an installer correctly orient and locate the support material (Paragraph 0005). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize Pollard’s type of “support” in the location of Bunea et al. support (as identified in Annotated Bunea et al. Fig. 14E, above) for the advantages of utilizing a material that is a fire retardant, provides strength to a system, helps an installer correctly orient and locate the support material, and decreases wear on the wires.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to substitute Bunea et al. unknown material for Pollard’s material such that the support of Bunea et al. comprises the second material for the advantages of utilizing a material that is a fire retardant, provides strength to a system, helps an installer correctly orient and locate the support material, and decreases wear on the wires.
In regards to the limitation that, “wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K”, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification a material that has this thermal conductivity is selected from one of polymers, composite material, silicone, and polystyrene (See Instant Specification – Page 2, Lines 13-23). Accordingly, modified Bunea et al. first support that includes one of these materials, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification, would have a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K in regards to the “silicone material”.
In regards to the limitation that, “wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K”, Pollard discloses that the support can comprise polyimides (Paragraph 0033) which as evidenced by Matmake (See thermal conductivity 0.1-0.36 W/m*K), can have a thermal conductivity that is between 0.02 W/m-K to 0.2 W/m-K. Pollard also discloses the support can be a polyurethane which as evidenced by Synthesia Technology, has a thermal conductivity of 0.022-0.028 W/mK which is completely within Applicant’s claimed range.
In view of Claim 2, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Pollard discloses that the first support comprises a polymer (Paragraph 0030, 0033 discloses the support comprises polymers such as polyimides - Paragraph 0034 - discloses composite materials in the sense that the polymers can have “fillers” , Paragraph 0044 discloses this support can be composed of silicone)
In view of Claim 3, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Pollard discloses that the first support can comprise a composite material (Paragraph 0030, 0033 discloses the support comprises polymers such as polyimides - Paragraph 0034 - discloses composite materials in the sense that the polymers can have “fillers” , Paragraph 0044 discloses this support can be composed of silicone).
In view of Claim 4, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Pollard discloses that the first support can comprise silicone (Paragraph 0030, 0033 discloses the support comprises polymers such as polyimides - Paragraph 0034 - discloses composite materials in the sense that the polymers can have “fillers” , Paragraph 0044 discloses this support can be composed of silicone).
In view of Claims 7-9, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In regards to the limitation that, “wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K”, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification a material that has this thermal conductivity is selected from one of polymers, composite material, silicone, and polystyrene (See Instant Specification – Page 2, Lines 13-23). Accordingly, modified Bunea et al. first support that includes one of these materials, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification, would have a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K in regards to the “silicone material”.
In regards to the limitation that, “wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K”, Pollard discloses that the support can comprise polyimides (Paragraph 0033) which as evidenced by Matmake (See thermal conductivity 0.1-0.36 W/m*K), can have a thermal conductivity that is between 0.02 W/m-K to 0.2 W/m-K. Pollard also discloses the support can be a polyurethane which as evidenced by Synthesia Technology, has a thermal conductivity of 0.022-0.028 W/mK which is completely within Applicant’s claimed range.
In view of Claim 13, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches that the first electrical connector can be separated from the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module by a gap that can range from between 1-5 mm and overlaps 3 mm (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D, below).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D
PNG
media_image4.png
326
669
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 14, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches the first support can have the configuration of a first protrusion and a second protrusion spaced apart from the first protrusion (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 51, below).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 51
PNG
media_image5.png
619
705
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Claims 15-16, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Bunea et al. teaches that the general dimensions of the junction box that houses the first and second protrusion (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 53, below & Paragraph 0122-0133). In the instant case, Bunea et al. discloses that the width of the junction box varies from 100-200 mm, wherein the distance between the first and second protrusion would have a protrusion that varies within the range of 50-80 mm including 70 mm, when the width ranges from 100-200mm. In regards to the limitation that “the distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion is 50 mm to 80 mm” and “the distance is 70 mm”. In the instant case one of ordinary skill in the art could modify the width of the junction box of Bunea et al. from a range of 100-200 mm would arrive at the limitations “the distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion is 50 mm to 80 mm” and “the distance is 70 mm”.
Alternatively and in addition to the above rationale, Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2144.04 IV, A. Changes in relative dimensions such as the relative distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art as the only difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion would not perform differently than Bunea et al. device and thus the claimed system is not patentability distinct from modified Bunea et al. prior art system.
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 53
PNG
media_image6.png
728
514
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 17, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches a return wire and a return wire connector in electrical connection with the return wire (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E, below).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image7.png
477
619
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein each photovoltaic module further comprises: a second support located on the baseplate, wherein the return wire connected is located on the second support of the first photovoltaic module so that the return wire connector is out of contact with the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module (Figure 51, #1324 & Paragraph 0352 – the return wire can be clipped into this element wherein the wires are then suspended See Fig. 14A & 14E).
In view of Claim 18, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches the at least one photovoltaic module comprises a second photovoltaic module installed on the roof deck, wherein the second photovoltaic module at least partially overlaps the first photovoltaic module (Figure 59A).
In view of Claim 19, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches a first electrical wire in electrical connection with the electrical component of the first photovoltaic module (Figure 14E).
In view of Claim 20, Bunea et al. teaches a system (Figure 4-5), comprising: a roof deck (Figure 4-5, #200 & Paragraph 0090);
at least one photovoltaic module installed on the roof deck (Figure 4-5, #10 & Paragraph 0089); wherein the at least one photovoltaic module comprises a first photovoltaic module (Figure 4-5, #10 & Paragraph 0090 – there can be a plurality of these shingles present on the roof deck);
wherein each photovoltaic module includes: a backsheet composed of a polymer (Paragraph 0087) that includes a first end (Figure 2A, #24) and a second end opposite the first end (Figure 2A, #26 & Paragraph 0065), and an upper surface (Fig.2A, the surface area of the flaps #54/#56);
a baseplate that can be located on the upper surface of the backsheet at the first end, wherein the baseplate includes an upper surface (Fig. 3D, #100 – Paragraph 0111 – the at least one wireway overlaps each of the flaps #54/#56);
Annotated Bunea et al. Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
515
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the baseplate is composed of a first material (Paragraph 0127 – composed of polyethylene or aluminum);
a first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E, below);
a first electrical connector in electrical connection with the first photovoltaic module, and wherein the first electrical connector is located on the first support of the first photovoltaic module (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E, below).
The first support can be seen in cross-section of the baseplate, which is mapped to Bunea et al. wireway 100. The “first support” is considered the electrical stand-offs that protrude from the bottom of the baseplate and keep the wires clear of the bottom surface of the baseplate (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D-E, below). Thus, this isn’t a theory, Bunea et al. indeed shows a first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate.
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image2.png
811
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. discloses that there are a plurality of support members covering the first electrical connector (Figure 8, #110 – the lid covers the jumper module portion, or any of the wiring portions can be covered by the lid 110 – Paragraph 0116 & See Figs. 12A-D, #110 covers the electrical connectors of the jumper module), the lid comprises a plurality of support members that can be on the base plate and support the electrical connectors so that they are out of contact with the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module (Figure 14D, all of the electrical wiring connectors are supported above the base plate via the plurality of support members – Paragraph 0116, 0353-0356 & See Fig. 51/61, #1332).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image3.png
661
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. teaches that the first electrical connector can be separated from the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module by a gap that can range from between 1-5 mm and overlaps 3 mm (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D, below & Paragraph 0125).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D
PNG
media_image4.png
326
669
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. is silent on the material of the first support such that the second material is different than the first material, wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K.
Pollard discloses a support (Figs. 1-4, #16) that comprises a second material that is different than the first material (Paragraph 0030, 0033 discloses the support comprises polymers such as polyimides - Paragraph 0034 - discloses composite materials in the sense that the polymers can have “fillers” , Paragraph 0044 discloses this support can be composed of silicone), these images (Figs. 1-4) also depict how this “support is located on and protruding upwardly from an upper surface of a baseplate” (Figs. 1-4, the bottom surface of the support rests on housing – Paragraph 0004), and the use of these types of structures can decrease wear on wires (Paragraph 0023), provides strengths to a system (Paragraph 0004) while helping an installer correctly orient and locate the support material (Paragraph 0005). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize Pollard’s type of “support” in the location of Bunea et al. support (as identified in Annotated Bunea et al. Fig. 14E, above) for the advantages of utilizing a material that is a fire retardant, provides strength to a system, helps an installer correctly orient and locate the support material, and decreases wear on the wires.
In regards to the limitation that, “wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K”, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification a material that has this thermal conductivity is selected from one of polymers, composite material, silicone, and polystyrene (See Instant Specification – Page 2, Lines 13-23). Accordingly, modified Bunea et al. first support that includes one of these materials, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification, would have a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K in regards to the “silicone material”.
In regards to the limitation that, “wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K”, Pollard discloses that the support can comprise polyimides (Paragraph 0033) which as evidenced by Matmake (See thermal conductivity 0.1-0.36 W/m*K), can have a thermal conductivity that is between 0.02 W/m-K to 0.2 W/m-K. Pollard also discloses the support can be a polyurethane which as evidenced by Synthesia Technology, has a thermal conductivity of 0.022-0.028 W/mK which is completely within Applicant’s claimed range.
In view of Claim 21, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches that the backsheet is composed of thermoplastic polyolefin (Paragraph 0012).
In view of Claim 22, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches an underlayment that is between the backsheet and the roof deck (Paragraph 0091-0092).
In view of Claim 23, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 20. Bunea et al. teaches that the backsheet is composed of thermoplastic polyolefin (Paragraph 0012).
In view of Claim 24, Bunea et al. and Pollard are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 20. Bunea et al. teaches an underlayment that is between the backsheet and the roof deck (Paragraph 0091-0092).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 13-17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunea et al. (WO 2022/051593 A1) in view of Toyomura (JP-2001313406-A). Citations below are made to Bunea et al. (US 2023/0283054 A1) which corresponds to the national stage of this application, and is therefore a translation thereof. Toyomura is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 1, Bunea et al. teaches a system (Figure 4-5), comprising: a roof deck (Figure 4-5, #200 & Paragraph 0090);
at least one photovoltaic module installed on the roof deck (Figure 4-5, #10 & Paragraph 0090); wherein the at least one photovoltaic module comprises a first photovoltaic module (Figure 4-5, #10 & Paragraph 0090 – there can be a plurality of these shingles present on the roof deck);
wherein each photovoltaic module includes: a backsheet composed of a polymer (Paragraph 0087) that includes a first end (Figure 2A, #24) and a second end opposite the first end (Figure 2A, #26 & Paragraph 0065), and an upper surface (Fig. 2A, the surface area of the flaps #54/#56);
a baseplate that can be located on the upper surface of the backsheet at the first end, wherein the baseplate includes an upper surface (Fig. 3D, #100 – Paragraph 0111 – the at least one wireway overlaps each of the flaps #54/#56);
Annotated Bunea et al. Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
515
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the baseplate is composed of a first material (Paragraph 0127 – composed of polyethylene or aluminum);
a first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E, below);
a first electrical connector in electrical connection with the first photovoltaic module, and wherein the first electrical connector is located on the first support of the first photovoltaic module (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E, below).
The first support can be seen in cross-section of the baseplate, which is mapped to Bunea et al. wireway 100. The “first support” is considered the electrical stand-offs that protrude from the bottom of the baseplate and keep the wires clear of the bottom surface of the baseplate (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D-E, below). Thus, this isn’t a theory, Bunea et al. indeed shows a first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate.
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image2.png
811
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. discloses that there are a plurality of support members covering the first electrical connector (Figure 8, #110 – the lid covers the jumper module portion, or any of the wiring portions can be covered by the lid 110 – Paragraph 0116 & See Figs. 12A-D, #110 covers the electrical connectors of the jumper module), the lid comprises a plurality of support members that can be on the base plate and support the electrical connectors so that they are out of contact with the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module (Figure 14D, all of the electrical wiring connectors are supported above the base plate via the plurality of support members – Paragraph 0116, 0353-0356 & See Fig. 51/61, #1332).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image3.png
661
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. teaches that the first electrical connector can be separated from the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module by a gap that can range from between 1-5 mm and overlaps 3 mm (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D, below & Paragraph 0125).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D
PNG
media_image4.png
326
669
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. is silent on the material of the first support such that the second material is different than the first material, wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.2 W/m-K.
Toyomura discloses that a wire support material is preferably formed of the material PPE (Paragraph 0047) and that the shape of an electric wire support member is free except for minimum necessary configuration requirements (Paragraph 0048) and that a wire supporting member that comprises environmental resistance, electrical insulation and mechanical strength are superior to ones w/o these features (Paragraph 0046). Additionally, the selection of PPE as a wire support material is preferable in regards to being flame retardant (Paragraph 0047). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute Bunea et al. unknown first support material for Toyomura’s PPE support material such that the first support of Bunea et al. comprises said PPE for the advantage of utilizing a material with superior environmental resistance, electrical insulation and mechanical strength which is flame retardant.
In regards to the limitation that, “wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K”, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification a material that has this thermal conductivity is selected PPE (See Instant Specification – Page 2, Lines 13-23). Accordingly, modified Bunea et al. first support that includes this material, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification, would have a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.2 W/m-K.
In view of Claim 2, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Toyomura teaches that the first support comprises a polymer (Paragraph 0047).
In view of Claim 3, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Toyomura teaches that the first support comprises a composite (Paragraph 0047).
In view of Claim 5, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Toyomura teaches that the first support comprises PPE (Paragraph 0047).
In view of Claims 7-9, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In regards to the limitation that, “wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K”, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification a material that has this thermal conductivity is selected from one of polymers, composite material, silicone, and polystyrene (See Instant Specification – Page 2, Lines 13-23). Accordingly, modified Bunea et al. first support that includes one of these materials, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification, would have a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K in regards to the “silicone material”.
In regards to the limitation that, “wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K”, Pollard discloses that the support can comprise polyimides (Paragraph 0033) which as evidenced by Matmake (See thermal conductivity 0.1-0.36 W/m*K), can have a thermal conductivity that is between 0.02 W/m-K to 0.2 W/m-K. Pollard also discloses the support can be a polyurethane which as evidenced by Synthesia Technology, has a thermal conductivity of 0.022-0.028 W/mK which is completely within Applicant’s claimed range.
In view of Claim 13, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches that the first electrical connector can be separated from the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module by a gap that can range from between 1-5 mm and overlaps 3 mm (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D, below).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D
PNG
media_image4.png
326
669
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 14, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches the first support can have the configuration of a first protrusion and a second protrusion spaced apart from the first protrusion (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 51, below).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 51
PNG
media_image5.png
619
705
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Claims 15-16, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Bunea et al. teaches that the general dimensions of the junction box that houses the first and second protrusion (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 53, below & Paragraph 0122-0133). In the instant case, Bunea et al. discloses that the width of the junction box varies from 100-200 mm, wherein the distance between the first and second protrusion would have a protrusion that varies within the range of 50-80 mm including 70 mm, when the width ranges from 100-200mm. In regards to the limitation that “the distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion is 50 mm to 80 mm” and “the distance is 70 mm”. In the instant case one of ordinary skill in the art could modify the width of the junction box of Bunea et al. from a range of 100-200 mm would arrive at the limitations “the distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion is 50 mm to 80 mm” and “the distance is 70 mm”.
Alternatively and in addition to the above rationale, Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2144.04 IV, A. Changes in relative dimensions such as the relative distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art as the only difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion would not perform differently than Bunea et al. device and thus the claimed system is not patentability distinct from modified Bunea et al. prior art system.
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 53
PNG
media_image6.png
728
514
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 17, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches a return wire and a return wire connector in electrical connection with the return wire (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E, below).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image7.png
477
619
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein each photovoltaic module further comprises: a second support located on the baseplate, wherein the return wire connected is located on the second support of the first photovoltaic module so that the return wire connector is out of contact with the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module (Figure 51, #1324 & Paragraph 0352 – the return wire can be clipped into this element wherein the wires are then suspended See Fig. 14A & 14E).
In view of Claim 18, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches the at least one photovoltaic module comprises a second photovoltaic module installed on the roof deck, wherein the second photovoltaic module at least partially overlaps the first photovoltaic module (Figure 59A).
In view of Claim 19, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches a first electrical wire in electrical connection with the electrical component of the first photovoltaic module (Figure 14E).
In view of Claim 20, Bunea et al. teaches a system (Figure 4-5), comprising: a roof deck (Figure 4-5, #200 & Paragraph 0090);
at least one photovoltaic module installed on the roof deck (Figure 4-5, #10 & Paragraph 0089); wherein the at least one photovoltaic module comprises a first photovoltaic module (Figure 4-5, #10 & Paragraph 0090 – there can be a plurality of these shingles present on the roof deck);
wherein each photovoltaic module includes: a backsheet composed of a polymer (Paragraph 0087) that includes a first end (Figure 2A, #24) and a second end opposite the first end (Figure 2A, #26 & Paragraph 0065), and an upper surface (Fig.2A, the surface area of the flaps #54/#56);
a baseplate that can be located on the upper surface of the backsheet at the first end, wherein the baseplate includes an upper surface (Fig. 3D, #100 – Paragraph 0111 – the at least one wireway overlaps each of the flaps #54/#56);
Annotated Bunea et al. Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
515
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the baseplate is composed of a first material (Paragraph 0127 – composed of polyethylene or aluminum);
a first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E, below);
a first electrical connector in electrical connection with the first photovoltaic module, and wherein the first electrical connector is located on the first support of the first photovoltaic module (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E, below).
The first support can be seen in cross-section of the baseplate, which is mapped to Bunea et al. wireway 100. The “first support” is considered the electrical stand-offs that protrude from the bottom of the baseplate and keep the wires clear of the bottom surface of the baseplate (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D-E, below). Thus, this isn’t a theory, Bunea et al. indeed shows a first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate.
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image2.png
811
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. discloses that there are a plurality of support members covering the first electrical connector (Figure 8, #110 – the lid covers the jumper module portion, or any of the wiring portions can be covered by the lid 110 – Paragraph 0116 & See Figs. 12A-D, #110 covers the electrical connectors of the jumper module), the lid comprises a plurality of support members that can be on the base plate and support the electrical connectors so that they are out of contact with the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module (Figure 14D, all of the electrical wiring connectors are supported above the base plate via the plurality of support members – Paragraph 0116, 0353-0356 & See Fig. 51/61, #1332).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image3.png
661
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. teaches that the first electrical connector can be separated from the baseplate of the first photovoltaic module by a gap that can range from between 1-5 mm and overlaps 3 mm (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D, below & Paragraph 0125).
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D
PNG
media_image4.png
326
669
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bunea et al. is silent on the material of the first support such that the second material is different than the first material, wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K.
Toyomura discloses that a wire support material is preferably formed of the material PPE (Paragraph 0047) and that the shape of an electric wire support member is free except for minimum necessary configuration requirements (Paragraph 0048) and that a wire supporting member that comprises environmental resistance, electrical insulation and mechanical strength are superior to ones w/o these features (Paragraph 0046). Additionally, the selection of PPE as a wire support material is preferable in regards to being flame retardant (Paragraph 0047). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute Bunea et al. unknown first support material for Toyomura’s PPE support material such that the first support of Bunea et al. comprises said PPE for the advantage of utilizing a material with superior environmental resistance, electrical insulation and mechanical strength which is flame retardant.
In regards to the limitation that, “wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.05 W/m-K”, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification a material that has this thermal conductivity is selected PPE (See Instant Specification – Page 2, Lines 13-23). Accordingly, modified Bunea et al. first support that includes this material, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification, would have a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K to 0.2 W/m-K.
In view of Claim 21, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches that the backsheet is composed of thermoplastic polyolefin (Paragraph 0012).
In view of Claim 22, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. teaches an underlayment that is between the backsheet and the roof deck (Paragraph 0091-0092).
In view of Claim 23, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 20. Bunea et al. teaches that the backsheet is composed of thermoplastic polyolefin (Paragraph 0012).
In view of Claim 24, Bunea et al. and Toyomura are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 20. Bunea et al. teaches an underlayment that is between the backsheet and the roof deck (Paragraph 0091-0092).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asks for review of whether the cited documents disclose or suggest a first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate, where the first support is composed of a second material different from the baseplate material and the second material has the claimed thermal conductivity, and where the first electrical connector is supported out of contact with the baseplate and separated from the upper surface of the baseplate by the claimed gap.
Applicant argues that the final Office Action expressly states that Bunea is silent on the material of the first support, wherein the Examiner relies on Sirski for a generic list of spacer materials and further relies on Appellant’s own specification as alleged evidence that such materials would have the claimed thermal conductivity.
Applicant specifically argues regarding the above two arguments that Bunea does not disclose a baseplate mounted first support composed of a different low thermal conductivity material as required by claims 1 and 20. The Examiner respectfully points out to Appellant that Bunea was relied upon to disclose that the baseplate is disposed on an upper surface of the backsheet at the first end (See Annotated Bunea et al. Fig. 3, below).
Annotated Bunea et al. Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
515
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first support can be seen in cross-section of the baseplate, which is mapped to Bunea et al. wireway 100. The “first support” is considered the electrical stand-offs that protrude from the bottom of the baseplate and keep the wires clear of the bottom surface of the baseplate (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14D-E, below). Thus, this isn’t a theory, Bunea et al. indeed shows a first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate.
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image2.png
811
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Bunea et al. does not disclose that a distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion is 50-80 mm. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to MPEP 2144.04 IV, A. Changes in relative dimensions such as the relative distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art as the only difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion would not perform differently than Bunea et al. device and thus the claimed system is not patentability distinct from modified Bunea et al. prior art system.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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 T 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
