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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Fig. 4 & 6 appears “38” should be –36—per specification pg. 13 line 13.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference element “38” has been used to designate both interior space and retainer bolt.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to the specification at pg. 13, line 13 & 19 it mentions interior space to be both 36 & 38 when the retainer bolt is mentioned as 38 at pg. 12 lines 16, 20, 25.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
There is no transitional phrase like “comprising” after the preamble.
Each dependent claim doesn’t start grammatically correct like “The roof structure” so the claim language is consistent starting from the independent claim, which should start “A roof structure”.
Regarding claim 13, for each row before “between”, include seals so the claim is more clear on what is being claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 & 10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hansson (WO 2021/255112).
In regards to claim 1, Hansson discloses a roof structure, comprising:
a plurality of parallel supporting gutters (as seen in fig. 2a, reference element 24), each formed from aligned supporting gutter sections 24, wherein ends of the supporting gutter sections 24 are arranged to overlap one another (as seen in fig. 2a);
wherein panel elements (as seen in fig. 2a, reference element 13) are each arranged between two supporting gutters 24 and rest on support areas (as seen in fig. 2a) of the supporting gutter sections 24;
wherein the panel elements 13 are arranged overlapping in the longitudinal direction of the supporting gutters 24 (as seen in fig. 4a),
wherein the panel elements 13 are transparent covers and photovoltaic modules are arranged below the panel elements 13, and wherein the panel elements 13 are photovoltaic modules (pg. 4 lines 24-26).
In regards to claim 2, Hansson discloses the claimed invention, wherein retainers (as seen in fig. 3, reference element 37) are arranged on the panel elements 13 and are connected to the support gutters 24 (as seen in fig. 5b).
The examiner wants to note that for this interpretation “connected to” is to be interpretated with the broadest reasonable interpretation as a first element being connected to a second element by elements in between.
In regards to claim 3, Hansson discloses the claimed invention, wherein the retainers 37 are elongate in shape and extend in the longitudinal direction of the panel elements 13 (as seen in fig. 5b).
In regards to claim 4, Hansson discloses the claimed invention, wherein the retainers 37 have an upper fold (as seen in fig. 5a, reference element 38) at an upper end and a lower fold (as seen in fig. 5a, reference element 36) at a lower end;
wherein the upper and lower folds of aligned retainers interlock (as seen in fig. 5a). The examiner wants to note that “at” is defined as near or close too such that reference element is near or close to all elements of 37 and 23’’.
In regards to claim 6, Hansson discloses the claimed invention, wherein the panel elements 13 sealingly terminate with the support areas 16b of the supporting gutter sections 24, so that an interior space (as seen in fig. 5b) sealed with respect to the upper side of the panel elements 13 is formed between the supporting gutters 24 and below the panel elements 13 (as seen in fig. 3, reference element 16b, pg. 9 lines 9-13 & lines 25-28).
In regards to claim 7, Hansson discloses the claimed invention, wherein openings (as seen in fig. 2a, between reference 13 & 15) are capable to provide either supply or removal of air from the interior space (as seen in fig. 2a).
In regards to claim 10, Hansson discloses the claimed invention, wherein the interior space is closed off by a floor at a distance from the panel elements (as seen in fig. 5b, pg. 4, lines 24-26).
In regards to claim 12, Hansson discloses the claimed invention, wherein the supporting gutter sections 24 have outer folds, the upper sides of the folds forming the support areas (as seen in fig. 2b, reference element 25).
In regards to claim 13, Hansson discloses the claimed invention, in which the sealing layer (as seen in fig. 3, reference element 29a) are between the panel elements 13, the contact surfaces or between overlapping panel elements 13 or between overlapping supporting gutter sections 24 seals are arranged (as seen in fig. 3).
In regards to claim 14, Hansson discloses a method for producing a roof structure with photovoltaic modules, in which a plurality of parallel supporting gutters 24 are formed on a roof surface from aligned supporting gutter 24 sections (as seen in fig. 2a), wherein ends of the supporting gutter 24 sections are arranged to overlap one another (as seen in 2a), panel elements 13 are each arranged between two supporting gutters 24 in such a way that they rest on support areas 16b of the supporting gutter 24 sections, wherein the panel elements 13 are arranged overlapping in the longitudinal direction of the supporting gutters 24 (as seen in fig. 4a), and wherein the panel elements 13 are transparent covers and photovoltaic modules are arranged below the panel elements 13, and wherein the panel elements 13 are photovoltaic modules (pg. 4 lines 24-26).
Claims 1 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kübsch et al. (US 20120325761).
In regards to claim 1, Kübsch discloses a roof structure, comprising:
a plurality of parallel supporting gutters (as seen in fig. 5, reference element 20), each formed from aligned supporting gutter sections 20, wherein ends of the supporting gutter sections 5 are arranged to overlap one another ([0019], line 13);
wherein panel elements (as seen in fig. 4, reference element S) are each arranged between two supporting gutters 20 (as seen in fig. 4) and rest on support areas (as seen in fig. 5, reference elements 13) of the supporting gutter sections 20;
wherein the panel elements S are arranged overlapping in the longitudinal direction of the supporting gutters 20 (as seen in figs. 9 & 10),
wherein the panel elements S are transparent covers, and photovoltaic modules are arranged below the panel elements S, and wherein the panel elements S are photovoltaic modules ([0050], lines 10-12).
In regards to claim 5, Kübsch discloses the claimed invention, wherein the support gutter sections 20 have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (as seen in fig. 5).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansson (WO 2021/255112) in view of Schuit et al. (US 20170155356).
In regards to claim 8, Hansson discloses the claimed invention (as previously mentioned in rejected claim 6 & 7), however, Hansson does not teach supporting gutters being mounted on cross tubes and wherein the openings for the supply or removal of air are provided on the upper side of the cross tubes.
Schuit teaches supporting gutters (as seen in fig. 68, reference element 9000) being mounted on a base track (as seen in fig. 68, reference element 8000) as well as the base track having openings on the upper surface where air is capable of venting through (as seen in fig. 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Schuit’s base track into Hansson’s design to further control entry points of air to either supply or extract air depending on the temperature of the panels as well as to maximize space underneath the panels to allow entry points of air while supporting the rail system. Further, it is well known in the art to allow air to enter various means into the photovoltaic panel system to either control the temperature of the panels as well as control on how air interacts inside the interior space to prevent lifting of the panels during possible extreme weather conditions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansson (WO 2021/255112) in view of Plaisted et al. (US 20060118163).
In regards to claim 9, Hansson discloses the claimed invention (as previously mentioned in rejected claim 6 & 7), however, Hansson does not teach the openings from the interior space being connected to ducts for guiding air flow.
Plaisted teaches of implementing vents (as seen in fig. 10a) which are connected to ducts (as seen in fig. 10b, reference element 1012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Plaisted’s duct design into Hansson’s invention, because a duct would control air flow to reduce overheating of the panels and determine to supply or remove air from the structure.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansson (WO 2021/255112) in view of Croft et al. (US 20130133723).
In regards to claim 11, Hansson discloses the claimed invention (as previously mentioned in rejected claim 1 & 6), however, Hansson does not teach wherein photovoltaic modules are arranged in the interior space and wherein the areas through which air can flow are formed above and below the Photovoltaic modules. The examiner notes that Hansson discloses forming of the interior space and the photovoltaic modules are above the claimed interior space.
Croft teaches of a stackable mounting bracket (as seen in fig. 5A & 5B, reference 100) that can receive a plurality of solar panels (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 104, [0018]), These mounting brackets 100 when stacked create these recess (as seen in fig. 5A, reference element 108) and where these recesses 108 are configured to receive solar panels 104, ([0033]). These brackets are also attached at opposite edges of the solar panel ([0018]) which can be capable of being placed in interior spaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these stackable brackets 100 into Hansson’s design to separate the panel elements from the photovoltaic modules. Separating these would be easier for an operator to remove either the panel elements or photovoltaic modules for cleaning purposes, easy access for replacement, and better control of temperature for which air can flow over and below the photovoltaic modules.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARRETT C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7.30am-5pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/GARRETT CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights