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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 12, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 17-18, 20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-16, 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan et al.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, line 3, recites “sop” and should recite “top”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan et al (US Patent 5,356,664 (already of record)).
Narayan et al teaches a composition comprising algae resistant (AR) roofing granules blended with non-algae resistant (NAR) granules (Col. 3, Lines 32-36; Col. 4, Lines 8-10). Narayan et al further teaches the granules have a mean particle diameter from about 425-1600 micrometers (0.425-1.6mm) (Col. 5, Lines 5-7). Narayan et al further teaches a blend ratio of AR to NAR granules of 20% (Col. 9, Lines 6-7) and 5-100% (which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges) (Col. 5, Lines 40-42). Narayan et al further teaches the algicidal copper compound includes cupric oxide, cupric bromide, cupric stearate (which satisfies claimed organic and inorganic algaecide) (Col. 6, Lines 17-36). Narayan et al further teaches providing the algae-resistant granules and non-algae resistant granules on an asphalt shingle surface (Spec, Col. 4, Lines 1-6). Narayan et al further teaches 20 grams/kilogram, 30 grams/kilogram and 60 grams/kilogram (which satisfies 2wt%, 3wt% and 6wt%) (Spec, Col. 9, Lines 1-3). However, Narayan et al fails to specifically disclose 70-99wt% of non-algae resistant granules and 1-30wt% of algae-resistant granules and the algae resistant granules have a d50 particle size of at most 0.8mm/0.5mm, a d10 of at least 0.1mm and a d90 of at most 0.9/1mm, the non-algae resistant granules have a particle size of 1-5mm and the algae-resistant granules has a d50 particle size that is no more than 40% of the d50 of the non-algae resistant granules.
With regard to 70-99wt% of non-algae resistant granules and 1-30wt% of algae-resistant granules, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided 70-99wt% of non-algae resistant granules and 1-30wt% of algae-resistant granules in Narayan et al as Narayan et al teaches a blend ratio of AR to NAR granules of 20% (Col. 9, Lines 6-7) and 5-100% (which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges) (Col. 5, Lines 40-42); a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to the algae resistant granules have a d50 particle size of at most 0.8mm/0.5mm, a d10 of at least 0.1mm and a d90 of at most 0.9/1mm, the non-algae resistant granules have a particle size of 1-5mm and the algae-resistant granules has a d50 particle size that is no more than 40% of the d50 of the non-algae resistant granules, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the algae resistant granules have a d50 particle size of at most 0.9mm/0.8mm/0.5mm, a d10 of at least 0.1mm and a d90 of at most 0.9/1mm, the non-algae resistant granules have a particle size of 1-5mm and the algae-resistant granules has a d50 particle size that is no more than 40% of the d50 of the non-algae resistant granules in Narayan et al as Narayan et al teaches the granules have a mean particle diameter from about 425-1600 micrometers (0.425-1.6mm), hence, it would only be obvious to provide d50, d10 and d90 values between the ranges taught in Narayan et al, which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I). Where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan et al (US Patent 5,356,664 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-16, 19 above, and further in view of Tang et al (US Patent Application 2020/0208405).
Regarding claim 21, Narayan et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Narayan et al teaches it is important that the resulting granules adhere to bituminous surfaces, such as asphalt (Col. 2, Lines 18-20). Narayan et al further teaches providing the algae-resistant granules and non-algae resistant granules on an asphalt shingle surface (Col. 4, Lines 1-6). However, Narayan et al fails to specifically disclose a shingle having a top and bottom surface with bituminous material disposed on the top and bottom surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Tang et al teaches roofing products for roof structures (Abstract). Tang et al further teaches the roofing product is a roofing shingle having a top and bottom layers that are each covered with bituminous material to form an asphalt shingle (Paragraph 41).
With regard shingle having a top and bottom surface with bituminous material disposed on the top and bottom surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a shingle having a top and bottom surface with bituminous material disposed on the top and bottom surface in Narayan et al in view of Tang et al in order to produce an asphalt shingle with algae resistant properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to obviousness rejection over Narayan et al, Applicant argues unexpected results. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because as recited in the previous office action, the parameters of the composition and comparison between conventional algae resistant granules and the second glass roofing granules are unclear. It is unclear the particle size of the first-class roofing material and second class of roofing material compared to the particle size of the conventional algae resistant granules. It is unclear what ranges provide the claimed criticality. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The examples in the specification are of no probative value in determining patentability of claims since they do not involve a comparison of applicant’s invention with the closest applied prior art. See In re De Blawe, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Fenn, 208 USPQ 470) CCPA 1981). Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 716.02(b) III and 716.02(e). Furthermore, the unexpected results/criticality must be commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights