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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 11/3/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 42-44, 46-48, 56-58, and 60-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Loftus et al (US 2013/0065020 A1).
Regarding claims 42, 47, and 48, Loftus teaches a roofing shingle (e.g., roofing membrane that is cut into the shape of a roofing shingle) comprising a substrate (200) (e.g., reinforcing layer) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the substrate comprises a single layer of material; a polymeric film (22) (e.g. membrane layer) directly contacting (e.g., fused to) the second surface of the substrate; a layer of asphalt (24) (e.g., adhesive coating such as asphalt) located on the first surface of the substrate; and a plurality of granules (28) located on the layer of asphalt; wherein the layer of asphalt directly contacts the first surface of the substrate; and wherein the plurality of granules directly contacts the layer of asphalt (para 10, 13, 37, 40-43, 53-55; fig 2a, 3).
Regarding claim 43, Loftus teaches the reinforcing layer (i.e., substrate) comprises woven, knitted, or nonwoven glass, polyester, or combinations thereof (i.e., glass or organic mat) (para 56)
Regarding claim 44, Loftus teaches the membrane layer comprises polyester, nylon, and/or PVC (para 38).
Regarding claim 46, Loftus teaches the asphalt may contain fillers, (i.e., filled asphalt) (para 43).
Regarding claims 56, 60, and 61, Loftus teaches a roofing shingle (e.g., roofing membrane that is cut into the shape of a roofing shingle) comprising a substrate (200) (e.g., reinforcing layer) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the first surface includes a headlap portion and an exposed portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
198
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Loftus further teaches wherein the substrate comprises a single layer of material; a polymeric film (22) (e.g. membrane layer) directly contacting (e.g., fused to) the second surface of the substrate; a layer of asphalt (24) (e.g., adhesive coating such as asphalt) located on the first surface of the substrate; and a plurality of granules (28) located on the layer of asphalt; wherein the layer of asphalt directly contacts the first surface of the substrate; and wherein the plurality of granules directly contacts the layer of asphalt (para 10, 13, 37, 40-43, 53-55; fig 2a, 3).
Regarding claim 57, Loftus teaches the reinforcing layer (i.e., substrate) comprises woven, knitted, or nonwoven glass, polyester, or combinations thereof (i.e., glass or organic mat) (para 56)
Regarding claim 58, Loftus teaches the membrane layer comprises polyester, nylon, and/or PVC (para 38).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 49-51 and 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Loftus.
Regarding claims 49, 54, and 55, Loftus teaches a roofing shingle (e.g., roofing membrane that is cut into the shape of a roofing shingle); wherein the roofing membranes may be stacked which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a stack comprising a plurality of roofing shingles (para 13, 40, 68; fig 3).
Loftus further teaches the shingles comprise a substrate (200) (e.g., reinforcing layer) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the substrate comprises a single layer of material; a polymeric film (22) (e.g. membrane layer) directly contacting (e.g., fused to) the second surface of the substrate; a layer of asphalt (24) (e.g., adhesive coating such as asphalt) located on the first surface of the substrate; and a plurality of granules (28) located on the layer of asphalt; wherein the layer of asphalt directly contacts the first surface of the substrate; and wherein the plurality of granules directly contacts the layer of asphalt (para 10, 13, 37, 40-43, 53-55; fig 2a, 3).
Regarding claim 50, Loftus teaches the reinforcing layer (i.e., substrate) comprises woven, knitted, or nonwoven glass, polyester, or combinations thereof (i.e., glass or organic mat) (para 56)
Regarding claim 51, Loftus teaches the membrane layer comprises polyester, nylon, and/or PVC (para 38).
Regarding claim 53, Loftus teaches the asphalt may contain fillers, (i.e., filled asphalt) (para 43).
Claims 45, 52, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loftus.
Loftus teaches the membrane layer may be between about 1 and about 120 mils thick (i.e., 25.4 microns to 3048 microns) (para 39).This range substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Loftus, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of a new prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 sections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783