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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 22nd, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 22nd, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejections over Bunea et al. in view of Sirski et al. are maintained.
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 1-5, 7-9, 13-14, 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunea et al. (WO 2022/051593 A1) in view of Sirski et al. (US 2021/0159844 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);
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).
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.
Sirski et al. teaches that spacers utilized for cable routing are also used to address impact protection and ventilation to prevent degradation due to heat, and that the material for a spacer include, polymers, composite material, silicone, and polystyrene (Paragraph 0061). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate as the material of the first support a polymer as disclosed by Sirski et al. as Bunea et al. first support material for the advantages of having a material that addresses impact protection and is flexible that also aids in the ventilation by preventing heat degradation.
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.
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_image1.png
661
436
media_image1.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_image2.png
326
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 2, Bunea et al. and Sirski et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. is silent on the material of the first support.
Sirski et al. teaches that spacers utilized for cable routing are also used to address impact protection and ventilation to prevent degradation due to heat, and that the material for a spacer include, polymers, composite material, silicone, and polystyrene (Paragraph 0061). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate as the material of the first support a polymer as disclosed by Sirski et al. as Bunea et al. first support material for the advantages of having a material that addresses impact protection and is flexible that also aids in the ventilation by preventing heat degradation.
In view of Claim 3, Bunea et al. and Sirski et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. is silent on the material of the first support.
Sirski et al. teaches that spacers utilized for cable routing are also used to address impact protection and ventilation to prevent degradation due to heat, and that the material for a spacer include, polymers, composite material, silicone, and polystyrene (Paragraph 0061). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate as the material of the first support a composite material as disclosed by Sirski et al. as Bunea et al. first support material for the advantages of having a material that addresses impact protection and is flexible that also aids in the ventilation by preventing heat degradation.
In view of Claim 4, Bunea et al. and Sirski et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. is silent on the material of the first support.
Sirski et al. teaches that spacers utilized for cable routing are also used to address impact protection and ventilation to prevent degradation due to heat, and that the material for a spacer include, polymers, composite material, silicone, and polystyrene (Paragraph 0061). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate as the material of the first support a silicone as disclosed by Sirski et al. as Bunea et al. first support material for the advantages of having a material that addresses impact protection and is flexible that also aids in the ventilation by preventing heat degradation.
In view of Claim 5, Bunea et al. and Sirski et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bunea et al. is silent on the material of the first support.
Sirski et al. teaches that spacers utilized for cable routing are also used to address impact protection and ventilation to prevent degradation due to heat, and that the material for a spacer include, polymers, composite material, silicone, and polystyrene (Paragraph 0061). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate as the material of the first support a polystyrene as disclosed by Sirski et al. as Bunea et al. first support material for the advantages of having a material that addresses impact protection and is flexible that also aids in the ventilation by preventing heat degradation.
In view of Claims 7-9, Bunea et al. and Sirski et al. 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 view of Claim 13, Bunea et al. and Sirski et al. 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_image2.png
326
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 14, Bunea et al. and Sirski et al. 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_image3.png
619
705
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 17, Bunea et al. and Sirski et al. 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_image4.png
477
619
media_image4.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 Sirski et al. 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 Sirski et al. 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);
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).
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.
Sirski et al. teaches that spacers utilized for cable routing are also used to address impact protection and ventilation to prevent degradation due to heat, and that the material for a spacer include, polymers, composite material, silicone, and polystyrene (Paragraph 0061). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate as the material of the first support a polymer as disclosed by Sirski et al. as Bunea et al. first support material for the advantages of having a material that addresses impact protection and is flexible that also aids in the ventilation by preventing heat degradation.
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.
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 14
PNG
media_image1.png
661
436
media_image1.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_image2.png
326
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 21, Bunea et al. and Sirski et al. 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 Sirski et al. 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 Sirski et al. 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 Sirski et al. 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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunea et al. (WO 2022/051593 A1) in view of Sirski et al. (US 2021/0159844 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 Claims 15-16, Bunea et al. and Sirski et al. 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”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144 II B, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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.”. In the instant case one of ordinary skill in the art 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”, because the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in Bunea et al., and it is not inventive to discover an optimum distance between a first and second protrusion.
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 53
PNG
media_image5.png
728
514
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Bunea in view or Sirski does not teach or suggest a first support located on an protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate because the Office Action identifies as “support members 118” of Bunea are internal features of a removable wireway cover or lid. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that the Office Action of record, or even the previous Office Action did not rely on element 118 as the first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate. Instead, Bunea was relied upon to disclose a first support located on and protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the baseplate (See Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E, below, there is a supporting piece holding the first electrical connector above the upper surface of the baseplate). The first support can be seen protruding in cross-section in Fig. 14D. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Annotated Bunea et al. Figure 14E
PNG
media_image1.png
661
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Bunea in view of Sirski does not teach that the second material is different than the first material and wherein the second material has a thermal conductivity of 0.02 W/m-K to 0.2 W/m-K. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that 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.
Sirski et al. teaches that spacers utilized for cable routing are also used to address impact protection and ventilation to prevent degradation due to heat, and that the material for a spacer include, polymers, composite material, silicone, and polystyrene (Paragraph 0061). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate as the material of the first support a polymer as disclosed by Sirski et al. as Bunea et al. first support material for the advantages of having a material that addresses impact protection and is flexible that also aids in the ventilation by preventing heat degradation. 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.
Applicant argues that Bunea et al. does not disclose the first electrical connector is separated from the upper surface of the baseplate by a gap, wherein the gap is 1-5mm. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that 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_image2.png
326
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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