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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-23 remain pending with claims 16-20 withdrawn as non-elected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell US 5232187 (hereinafter O’Farrell) in view of Blais US 2006/0000180 (hereinafter Blais).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 1, O’Farrell discloses: A lightweight composite roofing support system (Fig. 1), comprising: a single longitudinally-extending core member (14, Fig. 1) comprising a wedge-shaped lateral cross-section comprising a generally triangular shape (see Fig. 1), a first roof contact side (22, Fig. 3), a second side (see annotated figure 3) having a second width and a longitudinally-extending second length (see Fig. 1-3) that define a first working surface (see Fig. 1-3, the surface of the second side comprises a “working surface” that the user is able to use for various things, i.e. to step on, walk on, kneel on, place items on, etc), the first roof contact side and the second side tapering toward one another at a first predetermined acute angle (a) (see annotated figure 3) and defining a first free edge (see annotated figure 3, the edge near angle a is a free edge), a third side (see annotated figure 3) having a third width and a longitudinally-extending third length (see Fig. 1-3) that define a second working surface (see Fig. 1-3, the surface of the third side comprises a “working surface” that the user is able to use for various things, i.e. to step on, walk on, kneel on, place items on, supporting the paint bucket 12, etc), the first roof contact side and the third side tapering toward one another at a second predetermined acute angle (p) (see annotated figure 3, angle b) that is different than the first predetermined acute angle (a) (see Fig. 3) and defining a second free edge (see annotated figure 3, the edge near angle b is a free edge), the core member comprising a core material (see Fig. 1, shown as being made of a material since inherently the block 14 would have a material), the second side and the third side defining a fixed included angle between them (see Fig. 3, angle between side 18 and 14); and a cover layer (20, Fig. 1) comprising a cover material (soft sponge material, Col. 2, Lines 9-11), the cover layer disposed on and covering the first roof contact side (see Fig. 3), the cover material being substantially more compressible than the core material (Col. 2, Lines 9-11, durable material vs. soft sponge), the core member and cover layer comprising a first roofing support configured for placement at any location on a pitched roof with one of the first working surface and the second working surface facing upward (see Fig. 1-3, the device forms a first support which is configured to be placed at any position on a pitched roof by lifting up on handles 26 and positioning 14 as desired).
Re. Cl. 7, O’Farrell discloses: the first working surface comprises a substantially horizontal second side platform configured to support a predetermined roofing load comprising the roofing worker when the first roof contact side is disposed on a first roof comprising a plurality of first predetermined roof pitches with the first predetermined acute angle (a) converging upslope, and the second working surface comprises a substantially horizontal third side platform configured to support the predetermined roofing load when the first roof contact side is disposed on a second roof comprising a plurality of second predetermined roof pitches with the second predetermined acute angle (p) converging upslope (see Fig. 1-3, due to the configuration of having the different angles a and b, and flat surfaces, the device is configured to be used as claimed). .
Re. Cl. 8, O’Farrell discloses: the first predetermined roof pitches range from 15/12 to 9/12 and the second predetermined roof pitches range from 13/12 to 7/12 (see Fig. 1-3, the device is configured to be used on roof surfaces having pitches within the claimed range by having the device placed on the roof surfaces with either side facing upslope).
Re. Cl. 1, O’Farrell does not disclose that the second/third length is greater than the second/third width or the fixed angle between them is obtuse. Blais discloses a roofing support system (Fig. 1) which has its longitudinally extending width (longitudinal dimensions of 12s) greater than its width (distance between 16 and 18, Fig. 1) so that the system creates a more secure base by spanning at least two roof trusses (Abstract, Lines 1-4 for example). Further, Blais discloses that the angles created between 20 and 12, and 28 and 12 (corresponding to angles a and b in O’Farrell as annotated above) are adjustable to various different positions (see Fig. 2, by selecting which 30 the pin 29 engages). It is the Examiner’s position that as can be seen in Fig. 2, by employing the slot (30) which is the second from the left end of 12, the angle created between 20 and 28 would be obtuse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the O’Farrell device to have its longitudinal length be greater than its width as disclosed by Blais with reasonable expectation of success since Blais states that such a modification enables the base to span two or more roof trusses thus providing a more secure mode of attachment to the roof (Paragraph 0019, Lines 1-3). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the O’Farrell device to have its second and third side defining an obtuse angle as disclosed by Blais with reasonable expectation of success since Blais states that modifying the angle depending on the pitch of the roof will ensure the body (20) is horizontal (Paragraph 0016, Lines 8-12).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell in view of Blais as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Kielland US 2009/01511039 (hereinafter Kieland).
Re. Cls. 2 and 4, O’Farrell is silent as to how the cover member and the core are joined and therefore does not disclose a joint comprising a selectively removable joint (Cl. 2) or the selectively removable joint comprises a fastener removably joining the core member and the cover member (Cl. 4). Kieland disclose a roof support system (Fig. 2) which includes a core member (11, Fig. 2) that is joined to a cover member (24a, Fig. 2) via a selectively removable joint (see 25, Fig. 2 Paragraph 0038, Lines 1-6) in the form of a fastener removably joining the core member and cover member (see 25, Fig. 2, Velcro fasteners).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the O’Farrell device to have the cover and core joined via the Velcro fastener of Kieland since Kieland states that such a modification enables for a replaceable pad that can be replaced with new pads when they become worn (Paragraph 0038, Lines 1-6 and 10-12).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell in view of Blais as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Bancroft US 2014/0116804 (hereinafter Bancroft).
Re. Cl. 3, as discussed above, O’Farrell is silent as to how the cover member and the core are joined and therefore does not disclose a joint comprising a permanent joint comprising a glue joint. Bancroft discloses a roofing support system (Fig. 1) which includes a cover or resilient pad (52, Fig. 2) which is secured to a core member (28, Fig. 1) via a permanent glue joint (Paragraph 0045, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the O’Farrell device to have the cover and core joined permanently by a glue joint as disclosed by Bancroft since Bancroft discloses that a glue joint is a suitable attachment means (Paragraph 0045, Lines 1-4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell in view of Blais as applied to claims 2 and 4 Kieland above, and in further view of Bidville US 2007/0069088 (hereinafter Bidville).
Re. Cl. 5, O’Farrell does not disclose the cover layer is disposed on the core member by the selectively removable joint and the cover layer comprises one of a plurality of different cover layers each one comprising a different cover material that is respectively configured for disposition on one of a plurality of different roof decks, and wherein the different cover materials are each configured to provide a coefficient of sliding friction that is selected to substantially prevent or resist sliding movement down the respective roof deck. Bidville discloses a support system (Fig. 3) that includes a cover layer (see 320, Fig. 3) disposed on a core member (105, Fig. 3) in a removable fashion (see Fig. 3, via 310 and 320) and the cover layer comprises a plurality of different cover layers comprising different cover layer materials that are respectively configured for use on different surfaces (Paragraph 0051, Lines 1-7 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the O’Farrell device to have interchangeable cover materials based on certain roof decks as disclosed by Bidville since Bidville states that such interchangeability enables cover layers to be replaced with ones that will perform better on the intended work surface (Paragraph 0051, Lines 1-7).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell in view of Blais as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and in further view of Lord US 2012/0080264 (hereinafter Lord).
Re. Cl. 6, O’Farrell does not disclose the roof support has a length of 18 to 144 inches and the cover layer has a thickness of 0.25 to 2.5 inches. Lord discloses a roof supporting system (Fig. 1) which has a working surface (4, Fig. 1) and a cover layer (52, Fig. 7). Lord discloses that the length of the working surface is between 18 to 144 inches (Paragraph 0022, Lines 4-6) and the cover layer has a thickness of .25 to 2.5 inches (Paragraph 0040, Lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the O’Farrell device to have the dimensions of Lord since Lord states that such a modification provides preferable dimensions which can vary depending on the material used for the platform and the particular application (Paragraph 0022, Lines 1-6) and enables the cover layer to compress fairly easily during use which ensures contact with the exposed surface of the roof without causing damage (Paragraph 0040, Lines 6-8).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell in view of Blais as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and in further view of Rose US 2009/0173849 (hereinafter Rose).
Re. Cls. 9-12, O’Farrell does not disclose the first working surface and/or the second working surface comprise a non-skid surface over all or a portion thereof that is integrally formed in the core material of the respective working surface(Cl. 9), the non-skid surface comprises a predetermined surface texture, or a predetermined surface roughness (Cl. 10), the non-skid surface of the first working surface and/or the second working surface may be the same or different over all or a portion thereof (Cl. 11) or the non-skid surface comprises a predetermined pattern, and wherein the predetermined pattern comprises an embossed pattern (Cl. 12). Rose discloses a paint support platform (Fig. 4) which includes a paint can/bucket receptacle (460) and a surrounding surface (424) which forms a first working surface (see Fig. 4), wherein the first working surface comprise a non-skid surface (created by 462, 464, Fig 4 and 8, the protrusions for a non-skid surface for paint trays as discussed in Paragraph 0059) over all or a portion thereof that is integrally formed in the core material of the respective working surface (see Fig. 4 and 8); the non-skid surface comprises a predetermined surface texture, or a predetermined surface roughness (see 462, 464 Fig. 4 and 8); the non-skid surface of the first working surface may be the same or different over all or a portion thereof (see Fig. 8, the portions 462 are the same and 464 are different); the non-skid surface comprises a predetermined pattern (see Fig. 8, predetermined to correspond to pain trays of various sizes as discussed in Paragraph 0059), and wherein the predetermined pattern comprises an embossed pattern (see Fig. 4 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the O’Farrell device to have the pattern (462 and 464) on its working surface as disclosed by Rose with reasonable expectation of success since Rose states that such a modification enables for paint trays of various sizes to be supported without sliding (Paragraph 0059, Lines 2-9).
Claims 13-14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell in view of Blais as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and in further view of Kieland in view of Lord.
Re. Cls. 13-14 and 22, O’Farrell does not disclose the core material comprises an engineering thermoset or thermoplastic polymer and the cover material comprises an open cell or closed cell polymer foam (Cl. 13 and 22); the engineering thermoset or thermoplastic polymer comprises an expanded polymer and the polymer foam comprises a polyurethane foam (Cl. 14). Kieland discloses a roofing support system (Fig. 1) which includes a wedge body (11, Fig. 1) that is made out of a core material comprising an engineering thermoset or thermoplastic polymer which comprises an expanded polymer (Paragraph 0028, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the O’Farrell device to be made of the material disclosed by Kieland since Kieland states that such a modification provides sufficient strength while minimizing the weight (Paragraph 0028, Lines 1-5).
Re. Cls. 13-14 and 22, O’Farrell in view of Kieland does not disclose the cover material comprises an open cell or closed cell polymer foam (Cl. 14) or the polymer foam comprises a polyurethane foam (Cl. 13). Lord discloses a roof support (Fig. 1) which includes a cover member (52, Fig. 7) which comprises an open cell or closed cell polymer foam in the form of a polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0032, Lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover material of O’Farrell to be the material disclosed by Lord since Lord states the material enables the cover layer to compress fairly easily during use which ensures contact with the exposed surface of the roof without causing damage (Paragraph 0040, Lines 6-8).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen US 5263551 (hereinafter Andersen) in view of Blais.
PNG
media_image2.png
632
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 15, Andersen discloses: A lightweight composite roofing support system (10, Fig. 1a), comprising: a single longitudinally-extending core member comprising a wedge-shaped lateral cross-section comprising a truncated triangular shape (see 10, Fig. 1a), a first roof contact side (see lower side with 76, 78, Fig. 1a), a second side (64, Fig. 1a) having a second width and a longitudinally-extending second length that define a first working surface (see Fig. 1a the first roof contact side and the second side tapering toward one another at a first predetermined acute angle (a) (54, Fig. 1a) and defining a first free edge (see Fig. 1a), a third side (see Fig. 1b, side with 84) having a third width and a longitudinally-extending third length (see Fig. 1b) that define second working surface (see Fig. 4, as supporting 94), the first roof contact side and the third side tapering toward one another at a second predetermined acute angle (p) (60, Fig. 1a) that is different than the first predetermined acute angle (a) (Col. 3, Line 60-Col. 4 Line 7) and defining a second free edge (see Fig. 1b, lower edge of the side which supports 94 is free), the second side and third side defining fixed included angle between them (see annotated figure 1b), and a fourth side (66, Fig. 1b) that extends between and tapers downwardly from the second side to the third side thereby defining the truncated triangular shape (see Fig. 1a-b), the core member comprising a core material (Col. 5, Lines 18-21); and a cover layer (rubber padding, Col. 4, Lines 23-27) comprising a cover material (rubber, Col. 4, Lines 23-27), the cover layer disposed on and covering the first roof contact side (see Fig. 1a-b, as replacing teeth 76, 78, 80, 82), the cover material being substantially more compressible than the core material (rubber is more compressible than the materials in Col. 5, Lines 18-21), the core member and cover layer comprising a first roofing support configured for placement at any location on a pitched roof with one of the first working surface and the second working surface facing upward (see Fig. 2-5 for instance).
Re. Cl. 15, Andersen does not disclose the second/third length is greater than the second/third width or the fixed angle being an obtuse angle. Blais discloses a roofing support system (Fig. 1) which has its longitudinally extending width (longitudinal dimensions of 12s) greater than its width (distance between 16 and 18, Fig. 1) so that the system creates a more secure base by spanning at least two roof trusses (Abstract, Lines 1-4 for example). Further, Blais discloses that the angles created between 20 and 12, and 28 and 12 (corresponding to angles a and b in O’Farrell as annotated above) are adjustable to various different positions (see Fig. 2, by selecting which 30 the pin 29 engages). It is the Examiner’s position that as can be seen in Fig. 2, by employing the slot (30) which is the second from the left end of 12, the angle created between 20 and 28 would be obtuse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Andersen device to have its longitudinal length be greater than its width as disclosed by Blais with reasonable expectation of success since Blais states that such a modification enables the base to span two or more roof trusses thus providing a more secure mode of attachment to the roof (Paragraph 0019, Lines 1-3). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Andersen device to have its second and third side defining an obtuse angle as disclosed by Blais with reasonable expectation of success since Blais states that modifying the angle depending on the pitch of the roof will ensure the body (20) is horizontal (Paragraph 0016, Lines 8-12).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell in view of Blais in view of Rose.
PNG
media_image3.png
334
553
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 21, O’Farrell discloses: A lightweight composite roofing support system (Fig. 1), comprising: a single longitudinally-extending core member (14, Fig. 1) comprising a wedge-shaped lateral cross-section comprising a generally triangular shape (see Fig. 1), a first roof contact side (22, Fig. 3), a second side (see annotated figure 3) having a second width and a longitudinally-extending second length (see Fig. 1-3) that define a first working surface (see Fig. 1-3, the surface of the second side comprises a “working surface” that the user is able to use for various things, i.e. to step on, walk on, kneel on, place items on, supporting the paint bucket 12, etc), the first roof contact side and the second side tapering toward one another at a first predetermined acute angle (a) (see annotated figure 3) and defining a first free edge (see annotated figure 3, the edge near angle a is a free edge), a third side (see annotated figure 3) having a third width and a longitudinally-extending third length (see Fig. 1-3) that define a centrally continuous second working surface (see Fig. 1-3, the surface of the third side is entirely continuous and comprises a “working surface” that the user is able to use for various things, i.e. to step on, walk on, kneel on, place items on, etc), the first roof contact side and the third side tapering toward one another at a second predetermined acute angle (p) (see annotated figure 3, angle b) that is different than the first predetermined acute angle (a) (see Fig. 3) and defining a second free edge (see annotated figure 3, the edge near angle b is a free edge), the core member comprising a core material (see Fig. 1, shown as being made of a material since inherently the block 14 would have a material); and a cover layer (20, Fig. 1) comprising a cover material (soft sponge material, Col. 2, Lines 9-11), the cover layer disposed on and covering the first roof contact side (see Fig. 3), the cover material being a different material than the core material and substantially more compressible than the core material (Col. 2, Lines 9-11, durable material vs. soft sponge), the cover layer comprising a free peripheral edge disposed proximate the first free edge and the second free edge (see Fig. 3); the core member and cover layer comprising a first roofing support configured for placement at any location on a pitched roof with one of the first working surface and the second working surface facing upward (see Fig. 1-3, the device forms a first support which is configured to be placed at any position on a pitched roof by lifting up on handles 26 and positioning 14 as desired).
Re. Cl. 23, O’Farrell discloses: the second side and third side define a fixed included angle between them (see Fig. 3, angle between side 18 and 14).
Re. Cl. 21 and 23, O’Farrell does not disclose the second/third length is greater than the second/third width, at least one of the first working surface and second working surface comprising an integrally formed non-skid surface; the non-skid surface spaced from the cover layer and cover material (Cl. 21) or the fixed angle is obtuse (Cl. 23). Blais discloses a roofing support system (Fig. 1) which has its longitudinally extending width (longitudinal dimensions of 12s) greater than its width (distance between 16 and 18, Fig. 1) so that the system creates a more secure base by spanning at least two roof trusses (Abstract, Lines 1-4 for example). Further, Blais discloses that the angles created between 20 and 12, and 28 and 12 (corresponding to angles a and b in O’Farrell as annotated above) are adjustable to various different positions (see Fig. 2, by selecting which 30 the pin 29 engages). It is the Examiner’s position that as can be seen in Fig. 2, by employing the slot (30) which is the second from the left end of 12, the angle created between 20 and 28 would be obtuse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the O’Farrell device to have its longitudinal length be greater than its width as disclosed by Blais with reasonable expectation of success since Blais states that such a modification enables the base to span two or more roof trusses thus providing a more secure mode of attachment to the roof (Paragraph 0019, Lines 1-3). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the O’Farrell device to have its second and third side defining an obtuse angle as disclosed by Blais with reasonable expectation of success since Blais states that modifying the angle depending on the pitch of the roof will ensure the body (20) is horizontal (Paragraph 0016, Lines 8-12).
Re. Cl. 21, O’Farrell in view of Blais does not disclose at least one of the first working surface and second working surface comprising an integrally formed non-skid surface; the non-skid surface spaced from the cover layer and cover material. Rose discloses a paint support platform (Fig. 4) which includes a paint can/bucket receptacle (460) and a surrounding surface (424) which forms a first working surface (see Fig. 4), wherein the first working surface comprise an integrally formed non-skid surface (created by 462, 464, Fig 4 and 8, the protrusions for a non-skid surface for paint trays as discussed in Paragraph 0059). Re. the limitation “the non-skid surface spaced from the cover layer and cover material,” it is the Examiner’s position that by modifying the flat surface around the bucket receptacle in O’Farrell to include the projections of Rose would produce a device where the non-skid surface is spaced from the cover layer and cover material since the cover layer and material do not engage with the annotated second side.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the O’Farrell device to have the pattern (462 and 464) on its working surface as disclosed by Rose with reasonable expectation of success since Rose states that such a modification enables for paint trays of various sizes to be supported without sliding (Paragraph 0059, Lines 2-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that Blais does not supply basis to modify O’Farrell with an obtuse angle as alleged, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant proceeds to argue four separate points and the Examiner will use the same numerical adjectives to answer Applicant’s arguments below for better clarity. Firstly, Applicant argues that O’Farrell is a monolithic wedge shaped body and Blais discloses an open framed base which are structurally disparate and functionally incompatible. It appears as if the Applicant is of the position that the Examiner is attempting to modify the O’Farrell reference to include the structure of Blais, which is not the case. The Examiner is merely relying upon Blais to disclose known dimensional values of roofing supports which would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill how to adjust the dimensions of O’Farrell. Applicant argues that the rejection is conclusory and lacks evidentiary support how the modification could be implemented without a wholesale redesign of O’Farrell. It is the Examiner position that modifying the angle and length of O’Farrell’s wedge would be a simple modification of O’Farrell which would be well within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art. Secondly, Applicant argues that O’Farrell already contemplates use on roofs of varying pitch and provides a complete solution via the adjustable holder (32). Applicant appears to be arguing their opinion on the O’Farrell disclosure since O’Farrell does not specify that their invention is a “complete solution” or anything resembling such language. As set forth above, the rejection is based on the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-3 which does not contemplate or discuss adjustment for varying roof pitches. The Examiner wishes to point out that the particular embodiment shown in Fig. 4 and argued by the Applicant, is a modification of the initial invention (shown in Fig. 1-3) (see Col. 1, Lines 50-55) which appears to be an optional or additional feature if wanted/needed by the user. Further, if even the embodiment in Fig. 4 were required in all embodiments of O’Farrell, to which the Examiner does not agree, having one particular manner to compensate for some degree of variable in pitch does not negate any possible need of having another mechanism. For instance, the pivotal joint in (32) could fail, thus requiring an alternative mechanism to achieve the function. The pain bucked could be entirely full or almost empty which could make the joint (32) non-desirable to use in particular instances. Thirdly, Applicant argues that there is no showing that altering the angle between the upper surface 18 and the back surface to be obtuse would affect operation of the adjustable holder (32). The Examiner again wishes to point out that the rejection is based on the embodiment shown in Fig. 1-3, whereas Applicant is referencing a secondary or different embodiment (shown in Fig. 4). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that there is no requirement to discuss how the altering of the angle would affect the holder (32) since it is not part of the embodiment at issue. Fourth, Applicant argues that neither reference teaches orienting opposite edge of two distinct working surfaces of a wedge body upslope to present these surfaces as a horizontal or near-horizontal support surface for a worker, the examiner wishes to point out that the claim is directed towards an apparatus, not a system (i.e. apparatus, work products, roof structures etc.) or a method, and thus the claims must define what the apparatus is rather than what it is intended to be used as. The limitations dealing with how the wedge shaped body is intended to be used are intended use limitations and do not define structure which defines over the prior art of record. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this instance, it is the Examiner’s position that the structure defined by the claims is met by the combined prior art references and the structure is capable of performing the claimed intended use, thus meeting Applicant’s claim. For these reasons, Applicant’s argument has been considered and are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that Blais does not supply basis to modify the length of O’Farrell as alleged, the Examiner disagrees. Initially, Applicant references adjustable holder (32) again which the Examiner wishes to point out is not part of the relied upon embodiment for rejection and thus will not be discussed further. Applicant then alleges that O’Farrell has a means for transporting the device from place to place being the handles (24) and somehow links this to a position to why one of ordinary skill would not want to adjust the length of the device as proposed to span between roof trusses. The Examiner is of the position that the handles being spaced so that their ends are spaced as far as spacing between roof trusses would not adversely affect any functioning or use of O’Farrell. Typically in roof structures, the spacing between roof trusses is 24 inches or less (https://www.trusspal.com/truss-spacing/#:~:text=Roof%20trusses%20are%20typically%20spaced,truss%20spans%2C%20or%20other%20factors). Such a spacing would still enable the user to lift and transport the device up a ladder or elevator for instance. Further, any additional length would enable the user to support larger paint containers such as gallon containers, 5 gallon containers etc.. Applicant has provided no evidentiary showing why such a value would be contrary to O’Farrell. Applicant then proceeds to argue four separate points and the Examiner will use the same numerical adjectives to answer Applicant’s arguments below for better clarity. Firstly, Applicant argues that O’Farrell is a solid body and Blais discloses an open framed base which are structurally disparate and functionally incompatible. Applicant further alleges that the only disclosure of the obtuse relationship arises from adjustability. The Examiner does not disagree to that, but nonetheless, there still is teaching of an obtuse relationship covered by Blais. Applicant appears to be taking a unnecessarily narrow view of Blais and somehow argues that by having multiple different angles, a single value of those angles cannot be supported. In general, it appears as if the Applicant is of the position that the Examiner is attempting to modify the O’Farrell reference to include the structure of Blais, which is not the case. The Examiner is merely relying upon Blais to disclose known dimensional values of roofing supports which would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill how to adjust the dimensions of O’Farrell. Applicant argues that the rejection is conclusory and lacks evidentiary support how the modification could be implemented without a redesign of O’Farrell or hindsight reasoning. It is the Examiner position that modifying the angle and length of O’Farrell’s wedge would be a simple modification of O’Farrell which would be well within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art. Secondly, Applicant argues that O’Farrell modified to span two trusses as disclosed by Blais would prevent the user from transporting the device using the handles. The Examiner is of the understanding that typical spacing between trusses is 2’ or less (see citation above), and modifying the length to be as such, would not prevent the user from carrying and moving the device using the handles. Applicant has provided no factual basis for as to why the device would be heavier and harder to carry. It is the Examiner’s position that a lightweight durable material disclosed by O’Farrell (see Col. 2, Lines 8-10) modifying to be 2ft long or less depending upon the spacing of the trusses in the particular roof, would not be too difficult to carry or transport by the user. Further, Applicant has no basis to know if the dimensions of O’Farrell need to be increased or decreased since O’Farrell does not provide specific values of the length of the device. Applicant is basing their argument on the assumption that the values would need to be increased by a considerably margin when in reality the claim requires a modification such that the length is only greater than the width. For instance, one of ordinary skill could adjust the ratio of length to width based upon particular need which would all be well within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art so that a considerable increase is not necessary. Even if the values did in fact need to be increased in O’Farrell, to which the Examiner does not particularly agree, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a modification would not make the handles too hard to carry or the lightweight material of O’Farrell (see Col. 2, Lines 8-10) too heavy to carry as intended by O’Farrell. Thirdly, again Applicant argues that the proposed modification would require making O’Farrell bigger or longer and thus affect the functioning of the device. As set forth above, this is based on a faulty assumption since O’Farrell doesn’t disclose particular length and width values. Therefore, there is no factual basis for Applicant to conclude that the required modification needs to be a considerable increase in length. What is required in adjustment of the ratio of length to width ratios and it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously modified O’Farrell in view of Blais to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention. Fourthly, Applicant argues that neither reference teaches orienting opposite edge of two distinct working surfaces of a wedge body upslope to present these surfaces as a horizontal or near-horizontal support surface for a worker, the examiner wishes to point out that the claim is directed towards an apparatus, not a system (i.e. apparatus, work products, roof structures etc.) or a method, and thus the claims must define what the apparatus is rather than what it is intended to be used as. The limitations dealing with how the wedge shaped body is intended to be used are intended use limitations and do not define structure which defines over the prior art of record. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this instance, it is the Examiner’s position that the structure defined by the claims is met by the combined prior art references and the structure is capable of performing the claimed intended use, thus meeting Applicant’s claim. For these reasons, Applicant’s argument has been considered and are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the alleged modification of O’Farrell is plainly contrary to the primary object of O’Farrell, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant presents four different annotated drawings in appendices and has extensively argued that in these instances the device does not provide an effectual “working surface” that provides a substantially horizontal surface where the user can step on, walk on, kneel on, place items on, etc.. However, as discussed above and in various correspondence with the Applicant, these limitations are intended use limitations. The claimed invention is directed towards an apparatus, so recitations as to how that apparatus is intended to be used are intended use limitations. These limitations do not impart specific structure on the apparatus (i.e. further define what the apparatus is) and the prior art is capable of being used in the intended use as discussed throughout the rejection. Applicant appears to be arguing the specific recitation of “working surface” since the limitations dealing with “walking, kneeling, standing, sitting, etc.” have been deleted from the claims (see amendments made 1/11/2026). Applicant does not provide a special definition of the term “working surface” and it is therefore given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. The term working surface, given its BRI is considerably broad since all of the surfaces in the O’Farrell device can be considered “working” since they contribute to the successful functioning of the O’Farrell device. Taking a narrower interpretation, which appears to be more similar to what the Applicant wishes the BRI of “working surface” to require, it is the Examiner’s position that the durable material making up the O’Farrell device would employ the first and second surfaces to be stood or walked on, sat on or knelt on at least in part by the user. There is no evidence of record that the O’Farrell device is incapable of being sat, stood, walked on and therefore the remarks are Applicant’s opinion to which the Examiner does not agree with. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the proposed modification of Blais are improper because they would change the principle of operation of O’Farrell, the Examiner disagrees. Modifying the O’Farrell device to have particular dimensions would not change the principle of operation of O’Farrell since the device would function in a very similar or exactly the same manner as discussed by O’Farrell. Having a length spanning two roof trusses (i.e. 2’ or less as discussed above) would still enable the user to carry and transport the device to various places on a roof. Applicant’s argument does not provide sufficient evidence as to why modifying the length of O’Farrell to be 2’ or less as disclosed by Blais would prevent the O’Farrell device from being used as intended. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the proposed modification is improper because they would require a redesign of O’Farrell, the Examiner disagrees. The proposed modification is essentially a modification of particular dimensions to adjust the ratio of length to width of the device. Such a modification is routine and well within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art and therefore Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner has relied upon what is specifically shown and discussed in both O’Farrell and Blais and thus is proper. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that Blais does not teach or suggest anything about the nature or values of angles between (20) and (12), and (28) and (12) that would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude their correspondence to angles a and b in O’Farrell, the Examiner wishes to point out that such a comparison would be an obvious comparison easily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Both O’Farrell and Blais disclose the use of receptacles (32 in Blais) and (16 in O’Farrell), so it would stand to reason that would serve as comparative keys for orientation of the devices and how their angles would correspond. Comparing these structures, it is the Examiner’s position that the angles identified above would be the most obvious manner in which comparing the devices. Applicant further argues that drawings are not disclosed as to scale and thus cannot be reasonably asserted that the drawings shown the angles. The Examiner disagrees, MPEP 2125 states that “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed.” It is the Examiner’s position that the figures make it abundantly clear that the angle would be obtuse when the pin (29) occupies the second to last slot (30) from the left hand side of (12). Fig. 3 of Blais clearly shows that using the last slot (30), would employ the arm (28) parallel to (20) and thus adjusting (29) so it is located in the slot right next to it, would clearly have the disclosed angle as an obtuse value. Taking into context the disclosure of the angular change, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Blais supports the Examiner’s position. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive since it does not appear to take into context the entire disclosure of Blais and what it would convey to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the combination does not disclose the limitations amended into claim 1, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s attention is drawn above to how O’Farrell discloses a fixed angle and Blais discloses the required teaching to modify the fixed angle to a particular obtuse angle as motivated by the teachings of Blais. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that Andersen does not disclose the claimed invention of claim 15, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that side member (12) is not a longitudinal side but a lateral side, and generally argues that the Andersen device has a different specific orientation based on its intended use. The Examiner wishes to point out that these are maters of perspective depending on how the device is intended to be used or employed. Applicant’s claims do not require a specific orientation relative to a particular orientation of a roof or other structure and therefore do not require Applicant’s argued configuration. The claims further do not define specific structure lacking from Anderson and its modification based on Blais and therefore Applicant’s argument based on the intended use and intended perspective of their invention does not define over the cited prior art. The structure of Andersen as modified by Blais meets Applicant’s claimed limitations and is capable of being used in the claimed intended use, therefore Applicant’s argument are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s reference to objective evidence of nonobviousness and the attached declaration, the Examiner has considered these and has found them not persuasive. The declaration set forth points 1 through 4 which function as a summary of the invention and status for the Applicant’s invention and therefore will not be substantially answered. Further, within the affidavit, the Applicant refers to various different appendices which do not appear to be of the record. For the sake of completeness the Examiner will attempt to access the information from the appendices on the internet while considering the Applicant’s arguments. The arguments concerning objective evidence begin at point five and will be answered sequentially with numbers corresponding to Applicant’s argument for clarity. Re. point 5, Applicant alleges that there was an unsatisfied, long-felt and broadly recognized need for a device to improve the working conditions on steeply pitched sloped roofs. Applicant discusses a competing patent in US 8448746 (746’ patent) and compares a generic description of their invention to the 746’ patent. Applicant does not provide a specific nexus or a factually and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention. Specifically, Applicant merely compares a description of their invention (some of which is not claimed and some of which are functional recitations) to what is currently claimed. Further, no objective evidence is provided in this section since it is merely alleged as Applicant’s opinion that one particular patent (the 746’) patent didn’t discuss steeply pitched roofs, supporting asphalt shingles or using particular materials. The Examiner is of the position that discussion of one singular patent is not sufficient to establish a long felt need in the art. Further, Applicant has not provided a nexus between these features and any evidence for non-obviousness since these features are not all structurally claimed and positively required. For instance, Applicant’s claim 1 does not specifically require a particular material, particular specific dimensions, combination with specific shingles, etc. The manner in which the claims are drawn are far broader than this and therefore these arguments do not appear commensurate in scope with the claims at issue. This does not constitute objective evidence in the Examiner’s position. Re. point 6, Applicant proceeds to summarize their understanding of O’Farrell and its intended use. Applicant compares their intended use with the intended use of O’Farrell. Applicant is of the position that their supposed divergence in intended use is somehow sufficient to patentably distinguish their invention over the cited prior art. However, per MPEP 2114 (II) the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art and a prior art. It is the Examiner’s position that this is applicable to this situation since there is nothing preventing the structure of O’Farrell from being used as claimed by the Applicant. Re. points 7-8, Applicant presents evidence of non-obviousness where other devices have failed and presented evidence of the Pitch Hopper device (Applicant’s device seen at https://www.thepitchhopper.com/shop) success compared to the ‘746 patent. Applicant generally refers to the Pitch Hopper device as incorporating the elements of their claimed invention as set forth in independent claim 1 and 21. However, a brief glance at the device known and marketed as the Pitch Hopper, shows features which are not claimed in the current application. Specifically, the Pitch Hopper device as found on (https://www.thepitchhopper.com/shop?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21650994473&gbraid=0AAAAACalGfISakUmd4rr0qjfOwVX8ZFaM&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlO2IgZDUkgMV-lpHAR1JSRcxEAAYASAAEgLXBvD_BwE) includes specific handles, specific patterns and other features which are not claimed. There is no evidence to show that the success of the Applicant’s device is due solely to what is claimed in claims 1 and 21 and not the elements that are not included as discussed above or other variables, such as changing roofing conditions, economic considerations, etc.. Therefore, Applicant has not provided a nexus between the claimed invention and any evidence of commercial success. Re. point 9, Applicant asserts that the features of their invention are being copied since their device shares some features of another commercially available product called the Roofcat (https://www.roofcatoriginal.com/). Applicant then alleges that the success of Roofcat must be due to the features which were presumably copied from their invention. However, there is no objective evidence to support such a claim. Comparing the Pitch Hopper to the Roofcat, it is very clear that there are different structures included both (i.e. strap, particular holes for knees, etc.) There is no evidence presented that the success of Roofcat is due to the structures contained in claims 1 and 21. Re. point 10, Applicant proceeds to cite a review from a competitor and its acknowledgement of how the inventor’s device operates well. Applicant attributes certain quotes to the competitor in a supposed review which states that the competitor’s device have a similar design/feature. It is unclear how sharing certain features or having a similar design present evidence of a long felt need or commercial success. Applicant’s remarks do not equate the specific claim limitations to the long felt need or commercial success and therefore no nexus has been established. Applicant’s declaration has been considered but is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image4.png
752
1666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
810
1590
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith US 2019/0218799, Bourbonnais US 2015/0021452, Davis 2012/0085590, Hall US 2006/0226310, Miller US 6170222 and Bond US 5887406 disclose other known roofing support systems which are presented for the Applicant's consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632