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 .
Amendment filed 5/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 remain pending with claims 16-20 withdrawn as being nonelected.
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, 7-8, and 25 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. 25, 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), the first predetermined angle being selected so that when the first roof contact side is disposed on a pitched roof with the first free edge placed upslope substantially parallel to a roof peak, the first working surface is substantially horizontal (see annotated figure 3, the selected/illustrated angle a is an angle such that when placed as described in the claimed intended use, the first working surface would be “substantially horizontal;” the Examiner notes that the term “substantially” is a term of degree which is broad as discussed in MPEP 2173.05(b)), 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, 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 second predetermined angle being selected so that when the first roof contact side is disposed on the pitched roof with the second free edge placed upslope substantially parallel to the roof peak, the second working surface is substantially horizontal (see annotated figure 3, the selected/illustrated angle b is an angle such that when placed as described in the claimed intended use, the second working surface would be “substantially horizontal;” the Examiner notes that the term “substantially” is a term of degree which is broad as discussed in MPEP 2173.05(b)); the second side and third side defining a fixed angle between them (see Fig. 1), 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 first working surface and the second working surface each being configured to support a predetermined roofing load comprising at least one of a roofing worker or a roofing material (see Fig. 1, the identified working surfaces are configured to support a roofing worker by having the roofing worker’s foot or knee thereon and are configured to support a roofing material (i.e. shingles, nails, etc.) thereon due to their flat configuration); and a cover layer (20, Fig. 1) comprising a cover material (soft sponge material, Col. 2, Lines 9-11), the cover layer disposed on 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), and configured to provide a coefficient of sliding friction that is selected to substantially prevent or resist sliding movement down the pitched roof under the predetermined roofing load (Col. 2, Lines 9-11, by being a soft sponge material and acting as “non-slip,” the portion 20 would be configured to provide a coefficient of sliding friction that prevents resisting or sliding movement relative to a roof under a load in the same manner as it supports 12), 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. Cls. 1 and 25, 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).
Claim 21 is 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 second side and third side define a fixed included angle between them (see Fig. 3, angle between side 18 and 14), 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 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 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. 21, O’Farrell does not disclose the second/third length is greater than the second/third width, the fixed angle is obtuse, at least one of the first working surface and second working surface comprising an integrally formed non-skid surface. 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. 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).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell in view of Blais in view of Rose as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Bancroft US 9145687 (hereinafter Bancroft).
Re. Cls. 23-24, the combination of O’Farrell in view of Blais in view of Rose does not disclose a base disposed on and attached to the first roof contact side by a selectively attachable and detachable base attachment, the cover layer disposed on and attached to the base (Cl. 23) or the selectively attachable and detachable base attachment comprises a fastener (Cl. 24). Bancroft discloses a roofing support system (Fig. 9b) which includes a base (10, Fig. 1) secured to a supporting member (108, Fig. 9a-b) wherein the base functions to attach a cover layer (52) to the supporting member (see Fig. 9a-b). Re. Cls. 23-24, Bancroft discloses the base disposed on and attached to the first roof contact side (see Fig. 9a-b bottom side of 108) by a selectively attachable and detachable base attachment (frictional seating as discussed in Col. 10, Lines 4-10), the cover layer disposed on and attached to the base (see Fig. 1-2) the selectively attachable and detachable base attachment comprises a fastener (see Fig. 9a-b, the skit portion with its inward bend is a releasable fastener).
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 from having its cover layer directly attached to the roof contact side to having a base therebetween as disclosed by Bancroft with reasonable expectation of success to provide a removable connection where a user could replace damaged or worn cover layers in a simple, quick manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the office action applies an overbroad interpretation of the term “working surface,” the Examiner disagrees. Applicant provides no special definition of the term and therefore, per MPEP 2111, “claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.” It is the Examiner’s position that this is what the Examiner has done in this instance. As discussed above, the Examiner interpreted this term to refer to the surfaces being able to be used for various things, i.e. to step on, walk on, kneel on, place items thereon. It is the Examiner’s position that this is a reasonable interpretation of the limitation which is consistent with the Applicant’s specification. Applicant appears to be of the position that the term must mean that surfaces are configured to serve as a step, to be walked on or knelt on or to support roofing materials or other loads. While the Examiner does not totally agree that this is required, it is the Examiner’s position that the combined O’Farrell and Blais device would produce such a configuration. The Applicant’s cited definition is sufficiently broad since it does not require particular weights, dimensions, materials etc. and there is nothing of record that provides evidence that the combined O’Farrell in view of Blais device is not able to be used as intended by the Applicant. Specifically, it is the Examiner’s position that the O’Farrell device, including its angles, surfaces and materials cited above dimensioned as disclosed by Blais would provide working surfaces that are capable of being used as intended by the Applicant in their definition of the term “working surface.” In other words, Applicant’s term “working surface” is a broad term that is met by the structure disclosed in the prior art in the Examiner’s position. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the office action does not provide an articulated reason, grounded in the prior art which would motivate the proposed combination, the Examiner disagrees. 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. The motivation is found directly in the Blais disclosure as cited above. Applicant appears to further argue that O’Farrell would not look to Blais since they are of the position that the modification would be unnecessary. This appears to be Applicant’s opinion since it is not supported by sufficient evidence. The Examiner is of the position that the modification would provide added stability to the device or better distribute pressure forces onto the roof structure for instance. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the proposed modification of O’Farrell with the Blais dimensions would adversely affect the functioning of O’Farrell, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the change in dimensions would require changes to the solid housing, handles, attachments, cavity placement, holder location, balance, weight and cost. While this may be true, Applicant does not set forth how these changes would be outside the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art. It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would be well within their ability to make any necessary changes to O’Farrell along with the dimensional changes so that the device functions as desired. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s length/width rationale is deficient, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner has used the Applicant’s particular orientation as to length and width and applied it such that it is consistent with what is shown in the prior art. Applicant’s length extends in a longitudinal manner shown in Fig. 1 (i.e. in a direction extending between 43s) and the width as a dimension extending vertically at an angle (i.e. from 24’ to 12, 25) in Fig. 1. The Examiner has referred to the Blais device using the same orientation for the purpose of rejection. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the rationale is not deficient since the Examiner has used the same orientation as the Applicant’s to identify the teaching of the claimed subject matter.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the proposed modification of O’Farrell with the dimensions of Blais would change the principle of operation of O’Farrell, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant states that the change would be from a movable paint bucket stabilizer into a roof attached support, thus undermining O’Farrell’s objectives. However, this statement misrepresents the rejection as discussed above. The Examiner is not modifying O’Farrell to be a roof attached support, but merely modifying O’Farrell so that it has the dimensions of Blais. There is no change in how the O’Farrell device interacts with the roof, merely a dimensional adjustment which would still enable the device to function as desired by O’Farrell. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive since it is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s obtuse-angle rationale is unsupported, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that Blais does not disclose a single monolithic wedge shape core member having a fixed obtuse angle between them. However, the rejection is not based upon solely the disclosure of Blais since it is an obviousness rejection based on the combination of O’Farrell in view of Blais. The monolithic portion of the claims is met by the O’Farrell structure as discussed above. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant further argues that Blais does not disclose an obtuse angle since there is no explicit statement of the angle being obtuse. Applicant appears to be ignoring what is clearly shown in Fig. 2. It is the Examiner’s position that 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 clearly be obtuse or greater than 90 degrees. It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Blais discloses altering the particular angle between various positions (i.e. between an acute angle explicitly shown in Fig. 2 and an obtuse angle where the slot 30 second from the left end is used). Blais discloses that the purpose of altering the angle depending on the pitch of the roof will ensure the body (20) is horizontal (Paragraph 0016, Lines 8-12),thus providing guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art the motivation to change the angle based on the desired roof pitch. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the office does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would look to Bidville to solve a specific anti-slide problem, the Examiner is of the position that this appears to be a non-analogous art argument. In response to applicant's argument that Bidville is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Applicant was particularly concerned with providing a selectively removable joint so that the cover material can be changed out for particular roof surfaces. Bidville explicitly discloses that cover layers can be removable so that they can be configured to be used on different surfaces. Therefore, Bidville was reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s particular problem and is analogous art. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive..
Re. Applicant’s argument that the Andersen mapping is independently flawed, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that Andersen must only be considered as explicitly written in the specification and that the dimensional values are not a matter of perspective. The Examiner disagrees since the 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 argument that the submitted declaration was discounted and the declaration does provide the require nexus between the claimed invention and the evidence, the Examiner disagrees. The mere allegation that certain other inventors/companies copied parts of the Applicant’s design does not suffice to provide a factually based nexus for the purpose of proving non-obviousness. Applicant has still not provided evidence that the features structurally claimed are what both inventions need for commercial success/viability. For instance, Applicant’s claim 1 does not specifically require a particular material, particular specific dimensions, combination with specific shingles, combination with specific roofing pitches/slopes, etc which would all largely affect the commercial success of the device. As discussed above and in previous office actions, Applicant’s claims include various different functional recitations which refer to how the device is intended to be used rather than what the device actually is comprised of. Applicant appears to be arguing that the commercial viability of the device is a result of how very specific structures are then able to be used by workers in roofing. However, 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. Therefore, the Examiner has considered Applicant’s filing of objective evidence but has not found them persuasive in overcoming the prior art of record based on how the claims are currently written.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the office action has identified no reason or motivation to convert O’Farrell from a portable no-slip bucket holder to a truss-spanning, nail secured scaffolding support, the Examiner wishes to point out again that the Applicant is misconstruing the rejection. The Examiner has not proposed a modification where the O’Farrell device is somehow nailed to trusses on a roof as argued by the Applicant. The modification is simply to modify the dimensions of O’Farrell so that it is dimensioned as such that it spans trusses on a roof, providing a more secure mode of attachment. It appears as if the Applicant is conflating the term “attachment” with nail securing, but this is not part of the rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that O’Farrell adjustable holder is not irrelevant merely because the rejection is said to rely on Figs. 1-3, the Examiner wishes to point out that this is not the only reason why the adjustable holder is not relevant. First, the rejection is based upon a specifically identified embodiment of O’Farrell (Figs. 1-3) and O’Farrell identifies the figures as being a first embodiment (see Col. 1, Lines 45-51) and specifically states that what is shown in Fig. 4 is a “modification” showing an adjustable paint bucket holder (see Col. 1, Lines 52-55). By using the term “modification” and not illustrating the holder in Figs. 1-3, it is the Examiner’s position that what is shown in Fig. 4 is an alternate modification or embodiment which does not have to be included. Therefore, arguing that the modification must somehow be a part of the device is not commensurate with the disclosure of O’Farrell. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the office action does not merely take the position that the holder is irrelevant, the office action follows what is disclosed by O’Farrell. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that claims 21-23 and new claims 24-25 define over the prior art of record, the Examiner disagrees. Attention is drawn towards the rejections of the claims above as to how the claims are disclosed by the prior art of record. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights