DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10-14, 16, 21-29 are pending.
Claims 3-4, 7, 9, 15, and 17-20 are cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/15/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8 and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “the upper surface” in line 15. An upper surface is previously introduced with respect to both of the roof structure and the first layer. It is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the upper surface of the roof structure” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2, 5-6, 8 and 27-29 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choiniere et al (“Choiniere”) (US 5,803,693) in view of Gilley et al (“Gilley”) (US 2020/0385992).
Re claim 1, Choiniere discuses a fastener system (Fig. 3), comprising:
a plate (10) including:
a first surface (34) and a second surface (32) opposite the first surface (34),
an aperture (38) extending through the plate (10) from the first surface (34) to the second surface (32),
wherein the plate (10) is adapted to be installed on a roof structure (14, 16, 18) with the second surface (32) of the plate (10) engaging (Fig. 3) an upper surface (upper surface of 14) of the roof structure (14, 16, 18),
wherein the roof structure (14, 16, 18) includes a first layer (14), wherein the first layer (14) includes the upper surface (upper surface of 14), and wherein the roof structure (14, 16, 18) includes a second layer (16) below (Fig. 3) the first layer (14), and
a plurality of protrusions (48) extending outwardly from (Fig. 3) the second surface (32) of the plate (10),
wherein the plurality of protrusions (48) is adapted to grip (Col 5 lines 28-32) the upper surface (upper surface of 14),
wherein the plurality of protrusions (48) does not penetrate (Fig. 3) the second layer (16); and
a fastener (12) having a head (24) and shank portion (22);
but fails to disclose wherein the roof structure with the fastener system installed therealong meets requirements for Very Severe Hail resistance according to FM Approvals FM 4470 VSH impact resistance testing standard for Single-Ply Polymer-Modified Bitumen Sheet, Built- Up Roof (BUR) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies.
However, Gilley discloses wherein the roof structure (200) with the fastener system (60) installed therealong (Fig. 10) meets requirements for Very Severe Hail resistance ([0048]) according to FM Approvals FM 4470 VSH impact resistance testing standard ([0127]) for Single-Ply Polymer-Modified Bitumen Sheet ([0103]), Built- Up Roof (BUR) ([0103]) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies ([0103]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastener system of Choiniere wherein the roof structure with the fastener system installed therealong meets requirements for Very Severe Hail resistance according to FM Approvals FM 4470 VSH impact resistance testing standard for Single-Ply Polymer-Modified Bitumen Sheet, Built- Up Roof (BUR) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies as disclosed by Gilley in order to protect the roof or roofing equipment from hail damage ([0004]) and/or other weather resistant properties ([0005]).
Re claim 6, Choiniere as modified discloses the fastener system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of protrusions (48) is adapted to inhibit lateral movement (Col 5 lines 28-32) of the plate (10) relative to the upper surface (top of 14) of the roof structure (14, 16, 18).
Claim(s) 2, 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choiniere et al (“Choiniere”) (US 5,803,693) in view of Gilley et al (“Gilley”) (US 2020/0385992) and Olvera et al (“Olvera”) (US 5,607,272).
Re claim 2, Choiniere as modified discloses the fastener system of claim 1, wherein the first surface (34) of the plate (10) is an upper surface (34) of the plate (10), wherein the plate (10) includes an outer perimeter edge (Fig. 1, outer perimeter edge of 10), wherein the first surface (34) of the plate (10) extends substantially continuously from (Fig. 1) the outer perimeter edge (outer edge of 10) to the plurality of flaps (as modified below, proximate 38),
but fails to disclose wherein plate includes a plurality of flaps integrally formed at the first surface of the plate, wherein each of the plurality of flaps is resiliently biased such that each of the plurality of flaps is moveable between a first position, in which each of the plurality of flaps is substantially planar with the first surface of the plate, and a second position, in which each of the plurality of flaps extends inwardly within the aperture when the fastener engages each of the plurality of flaps during installation of the fastener in the aperture, wherein each of the plurality of flaps is automatically moveable from the second position to the first position after the fastener is installed within the aperture of the plate so as to cover the head of the fastener.
However, Olvera discloses wherein the plate (7) includes a plurality of flaps (49) integrally formed (Fig. 1) at the first surface (top of 7) of the plate (7), wherein each of the plurality of flaps 949) is resiliently biased (Col 5 lines 62-67) such that each of the plurality of flaps (49) is moveable between a first position (Fig. 2), in which each of the plurality of flaps (49) is substantially planar with (Fig. 2) the first surface (top of 7) of the plate (7), and a second position (Fig. 6C), in which the flap (49) extends inwardly within (Fig. 6C) the aperture (29) when the fastener (nail) engages the flap (49) during installation of the fastener (nail) in the aperture (29), wherein each of the plurality of flaps (49) is automatically moveable from (Col 5 lines 62-67) the second position (Fig. 6C) to the first position (Fig. 2) after the fastener (nail) is installed within (Fig. 8) the aperture (29) of the plate (7) so as to cover the head (of the nail) of the fastener (nail).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastener system of Choiniere wherein plate includes a plurality of flaps integrally formed at the first surface of the plate, wherein each of the plurality of flaps is resiliently biased such that each of the plurality of flaps is moveable between a first position, in which each of the plurality of flaps is substantially planar with the first surface of the plate, and a second position, in which each of the plurality of flaps extends inwardly within the aperture when the fastener engages each of the plurality of flaps during installation of the fastener in the aperture, wherein each of the plurality of flaps is automatically moveable from the second position to the first position after the fastener is installed within the aperture of the plate so as to cover the head of the fastener as disclosed by Olvera in order to prevent intrusion of unwanted material into the aperture after installation.
Re claim 27, Choiniere as modified discloses the fastener system of claim 2, Olvera discloses wherein each of the plurality of flaps (49) includes a free end (Fig.1, proximate 3), wherein each of the free ends (proximate 3) is proximate to a center point (3) of the aperture (29).
Re claim 28, Choiniere as modified discloses the fastener system of claim 27, Olvera discloses wherein the free ends (proximate 3) of the plurality of flaps (49) form an opening (Fig. 1, at 3) of the aperture (29), and wherein the shank (of the nail) of the fastener (the nail) is configured to be inserted in (Fig. 2-8) the opening (at 3).
Re claim 29, Choiniere as modified discloses the fastener system of claim 28, Olvera discloses wherein the plurality of flaps (49) includes four flaps (Fig. 1 disclosing more than 4), but fails to disclose wherein the opening is cross-shaped.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastener system of Choiniere wherein the opening is cross-shaped in shape in order to reduce the machining and/or cutting of the flaps required, as to create a cross-shape, only 4 flaps would be required instead of the numerous flaps disclosed by Olvera. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Claim(s) 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choiniere et al (“Choiniere”) (US 5,803,693) in view of Gilley et al (“Gilley”) (US 2020/0385992) and Lemke (US 4,987,714).
Re claim 5, Choiniere as modified discloses the fastener system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first surface of the plate is convex, and wherein the second surface of the plate is substantially flat.
However, Lemke discloses wherein the first surface (top of 52) of the plate (52) is convex (Fig. 5), and wherein the second surface (bottom of 52) of the plate (52) is substantially flat (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastener system of Choiniere wherein the first surface of the plate is convex, and wherein the second surface of the plate is substantially flat as disclosed by Lemke in order to reduce machining required for manufacture by reducing the need for the more complex shape within Choiniere. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 8, Choiniere as modified discloses the fastener system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the plate comprises a thermoplastic polymer, propylene, polypropylene, polyethylene, nylon, polyvinyl chloride, rubber, polyurethane, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, acrylo nitrile styrene acrylate, carbon fiber, metal, or combinations thereof.
However, Lemke discloses wherein the plate (52) comprises a thermoplastic polymer, propylene, polypropylene, polyethylene, nylon, polyvinyl chloride, rubber, polyurethane, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, acrylo nitrile styrene acrylate, carbon fiber, metal, or combinations thereof (Col 7 lines 16-32).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastener system of Choiniere wherein the plate comprises a thermoplastic polymer, propylene, polypropylene, polyethylene, nylon, polyvinyl chloride, rubber, polyurethane, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, acrylo nitrile styrene acrylate, carbon fiber, metal, or combinations thereof as disclosed by Lemke in order to utilize a cheap, durable, readily formable, weather resistant material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 10-12, 16, 21, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choiniere et al (“Choiniere”) (US 5,803,693) in view of Gilley et al (“Gilley”) (US 2020/0385992) and Reinwall et al (“Reinwall”) (US 4,726,164).
Re claim 10, Choiniere discuses a roof structure (Fig. 3), comprising:
a roof deck (18);
a first layer (14) and a second layer (16), each of which is positioned over (Fig. 3) the roof deck (18), wherein the first layer (14) is above (Fig. 3) the second layer (16), wherein the first layer (14) includes an upper surface (upper surface of 14);
a plurality of fastener systems (Col 5 lines 63-67 discloses “washers”), each comprising:
a plate (10) having a first surface (34), a second surface (32), an aperture (38) extending between (Fig. 2-3) the first and second surfaces (34, 32), and a plurality of protrusions (48) extending outwardly from (Fig. 3) the second surface (32); and
a fastener (12) having a head (24) and a shank portion (22) adapted to penetrate (Fig. 3) the roof deck (18);
wherein the plate (10) is positioned over (Fig. 3) the first layer (14),
wherein the plurality of protrusions (48) is adapted to grip (Col 5 lines 28-32) the upper surface (top of 14) of the first layer (14),
wherein the plurality of protrusions (48) does not penetrate (Fig. 3) the second layer (16);
wherein the fastener (12) is installed within the aperture (38) of the plate (10) with the shank portion (22) penetrating (Fig. 3) the roof deck (18),
but fails to disclose wherein the roof structure meets requirements for Very Severe Hail Resistance (VSH) according to FM Approvals FM 4470 USH impact resistance testing standard for Single-Ply, Polymer-Modified Bitumen Sheet, Built-Up Roof (BUR) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies, and the head of the fastener positioned below the first surface of the plate.
However, Gilley discloses wherein the roof structure (200) with the fastener system (60) installed therealong (Fig. 10) meets requirements for Very Severe Hail resistance ([0048]) according to FM Approvals FM 4470 VSH impact resistance testing standard ([0127]) for Single-Ply Polymer-Modified Bitumen Sheet ([0103]), Built- Up Roof (BUR) ([0103]) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies ([0103]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere wherein the roof structure with the fastener system installed therealong meets requirements for Very Severe Hail resistance according to FM Approvals FM 4470 VSH impact resistance testing standard for Single-Ply Polymer-Modified Bitumen Sheet, Built- Up Roof (BUR) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies as disclosed by Gilley in order to protect the roof or roofing equipment from hail damage ([0004]) and/or other weather resistant properties ([0005]).
In addition, Reinwall discloses the head (20) of the fastener (15) positioned below (Fig. 1) the first surface (upper surface of 25) of the plate (25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere with the head of the fastener positioned below the first surface of the plate as disclosed by Reinwall in order to protect the fastener from the elements, or to tightly draw the structure together and prevent axial shifting (Col 3 lines 16-23).
Re claim 11, Choiniere as modified discloses the roof structure of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the first layer comprises a polymer membrane overlying the roof deck.
However, Reinwall discloses wherein the first layer (11A) comprises a polymer membrane (Col 2 lines 38-45 disclosing PVC) overlying (Fig. 1) the roof deck (13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere wherein the first layer comprises a polymer membrane overlying the roof deck as disclosed by Reinwall in order to utilize a cheap, durable, readily formable, weather resistant material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 12, Choiniere as modified discloses the roof structure of claim 10, wherein the second layer (16) comprises at least one insulation layer (Col 3 lines 58-59) positioned over (Fig. 3) an upper surface (top of 18) of the roof deck (18) and the first layer (14) comprises a membrane (14) overlying (Fig. 3) the insulation layer (16), but fails to disclose the first layer as a polymer.
However, Reinwall discloses the first layer (11A) comprises a polymer (Col 2 lines 38-45 disclosing PVC).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere with the first layer as a polymer as disclosed by Reinwall in order to utilize a cheap, durable, readily formable, weather resistant material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 16, Choiniere as modified discloses the roof structure of claim 10, wherein the plurality of protrusions (48) is adapted to inhibit lateral movement (Col 5 lines 28-32) of the plate (10) relative to the first layer (14) of the roof structure (14, 16, 18).
Re claim 21, Choiniere discuses a roof structure (Fig. 3), comprising:
a roof deck (18);
a first layer (14) and a second layer (16), each of which is positioned over (Fig. 3) the roof deck (18), wherein the first layer (14) is over (Fig. 3) the second layer (16),
a plurality of fastener systems (Col 5 lines 63-67 discloses “washers”), each of the plurality of fastener systems (Col 5 lines 63-67) comprising:
a plate (10) including:
a first surface (34),
a second surface (32) opposite the first surface (34),
a perimeter (edge of 10) defining an outer edge (edge of 10),
an aperture (38) extending through (Fig. 2-3) the first and second surfaces (34, 32),
a plurality of protrusions (48) extending downwardly from (Fig. 3) the second surface (32) of the plate (10) and being adapted to engage (Fig. 3) the first layer (14),
wherein at least a portion (48) of the protrusions (48) of the plurality of protrusions (48) are arranged at spaced positions (Fig. 1) along (as “along” does not require “at”) the perimeter (edge of 10) of the plate (10); and
a fastener (12) having a head (24) and a shank portion (22) adapted to penetrate (Fig. 3) the roof deck (18);
wherein the plate (10) is positioned over (Fig. 3) the first layer (14),
wherein the plurality of protrusions (48) do not penetrate (Fig. 3) the second layer (16);
wherein the fastener (12) is installed within the aperture (38) of the plate (10) with the shank portion (22) penetrating (Fig. 3) the roof deck (18),
wherein the plate (10) is adapted to be installed on the roof structure (14, 16, 18) with the plurality of protrusions (48) engaging (Fig. 3) the first layer (14) as the fastener (12) penetrates the roof deck (18);
wherein the plurality of protrusions (48) are adapted to inhibit movement (Col 5 lines 28-32) of the plate (10) relative to the at least one first layer (14),
but fails to disclose wherein the roof structure meets requirements for Very Severe Hail Resistance (VSH) according to FM Approvals FM 4470 USH impact resistance testing standard for Single-Ply, Polymer-Modified Bitumen Sheet, Built-Up Roof (BUR) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies, and the head of the fastener positioned below the first surface of the plate.
However, Gilley discloses wherein the roof structure (200) with the fastener system (60) installed therealong (Fig. 10) meets requirements for Very Severe Hail resistance ([0048]) according to FM Approvals FM 4470 VSH impact resistance testing standard ([0127]) for Single-Ply Polymer-Modified Bitumen Sheet ([0103]), Built- Up Roof (BUR) ([0103]) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies ([0103]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere wherein the roof structure with the fastener system installed therealong meets requirements for Very Severe Hail resistance according to FM Approvals FM 4470 VSH impact resistance testing standard for Single-Ply Polymer-Modified Bitumen Sheet, Built- Up Roof (BUR) and Liquid Applied Roof Assemblies as disclosed by Gilley in order to protect the roof or roofing equipment from hail damage ([0004]) and/or other weather resistant properties ([0005]).
In addition, Reinwall discloses the head (20) of the fastener (15) positioned below (Fig. 1) the first surface (upper surface of 25) of the plate (25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere with the head of the fastener positioned below the first surface of the plate as disclosed by Reinwall in order to protect the fastener from the elements, or to tightly draw the structure together and prevent axial shifting (Col 3 lines 16-23).
Re claim 24, Choiniere as modified discloses the roof structure of claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the first surface of the plate comprises a convex surface; wherein the plate further comprises a recessed portion defined between the first surface and the second surface; and wherein the aperture is adapted to receive the head of the fastener when the fastener is installed, with the head of the fastener positioned below the first surface.
However, Reinwall discloses wherein the first surface (top of 25) of the plate (25) comprises a convex surface (at least at the perimeter); wherein the plate (25) further comprises a recessed portion (36) defined between the first surface (top of 25) and the second surface (bottom of 25); and wherein the aperture (35) is adapted to receive the head (20) of the fastener (15) when the fastener (15) is installed (Fig. 1), with the head (20) of the fastener (15) positioned below (Fig. 1) the first surface (top of 25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere wherein the first surface of the plate comprises a convex surface; wherein the plate further comprises a recessed portion defined between the first surface and the second surface; and wherein the aperture is adapted to receive the head of the fastener when the fastener is installed, with the head of the fastener positioned below the first surface as disclosed by Reinwall in order to protect the fastener from the elements, or to tightly draw the structure together and prevent axial shifting (Col 3 lines 16-23).
Re claim 25, Choiniere as modified discloses the roof structure of claim 21, wherein the plate comprises an ellipsoid- shaped cross section, and has a diameter of 2 inches to 3 inches.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere wherein the plate comprises an ellipsoid- shaped cross section in order to distribute stresses or forces in a particular direction, instead of uniformly. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere wherein the plate has a diameter of 2 inches to 3 inches in order to ensure sufficient size to effectively distribute loads and stress. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 26, Choiniere as modified discloses the roof structure of claim 21, wherein the first layer (14) comprises at least one insulation layer (16) positioned over an upper surface (top of 18) of the roof deck (18), a membrane (14), or combinations thereof (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 13, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choiniere et al (“Choiniere”) (US 5,803,693) in view of Gilley et al (“Gilley”) (US 2020/0385992), Reinwall et al (“Reinwall”) (US 4,726,164) and Lemke (US 4,987,714).
Re claim 13, Choiniere as modified discloses the roof structure system of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the first surface of the plate comprises a convex surface extending above the second surface; and wherein the second surface comprises a substantially flat surface adapted to be substantially flat against the first layer.
However, Lemke discloses wherein the first surface (top of 52) of the plate (52) comprises a convex surface (Fig. 5) extending above (Fig. 5) the second surface (bottom of 52), and wherein the second surface (bottom of 52) comprises a substantially flat surface (Fig. 5) adapted to be substantially flat (Fig. 5) against the first layer (56-58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere wherein the first surface of the plate comprises a convex surface extending above the second surface; and wherein the second surface comprises a substantially flat surface adapted to be substantially flat against the first layer as disclosed by Lemke in order to reduce machining required for manufacture by reducing the need for the more complex shape within Choiniere. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 22, Choiniere as modified discloses the roof structure of claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the plate comprises a thermoplastic polymer, propylene, polypropylene, polyethylene, nylon, polyvinyl chloride, rubber, polyurethane, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, acrylo nitrile styrene acrylate, carbon fiber, metal, or combinations thereof.
However, Lemke discloses wherein the plate (52) comprises a thermoplastic polymer, propylene, polypropylene, polyethylene, nylon, polyvinyl chloride, rubber, polyurethane, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, acrylo nitrile styrene acrylate, carbon fiber, metal, or combinations thereof (Col 7 lines 16-32).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere wherein the plate comprises a thermoplastic polymer, propylene, polypropylene, polyethylene, nylon, polyvinyl chloride, rubber, polyurethane, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, acrylo nitrile styrene acrylate, carbon fiber, metal, or combinations thereof as disclosed by Lemke in order to utilize a cheap, durable, readily formable, weather resistant material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 23, Choiniere as modified discloses the roof structure of claim 21, wherein the aperture (38) of the plate (10) comprises a first end (top end thereof) located along the first surface (top of 10) and a second end (bottom end thereof) that terminates at the second surface (bottom of 10) of the plate (10), but fails to disclose wherein the second end of the aperture is adapted to lie substantially flat against the first layer.
However, Lemke discloses wherein the second end (bottom end of the aperture) of the aperture (at 40B) is configured to lie substantially flat against (Fig. 5) the at least one layer (56-58).).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere wherein the second end of the aperture is adapted to lie substantially flat against the first layer as disclosed by Lemke in order to reduce machining required for manufacture by reducing the need for the more complex shape within Choiniere, via flattening at least the bottom surface. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choiniere et al (“Choiniere”) (US 5,803,693) in view of Gilley et al (“Gilley”) (US 2020/0385992), Reinwall et al (“Reinwall”) (US 4,726,164) and Olvera et al (“Olvera”) (US 5,607,272).
Re claim 14, Choiniere as modified discloses the roof structure of claim 10, wherein the first surface (34) of the plate (10) is an upper surface (34) of the plate (10), wherein the plate (10) includes an outer perimeter edge (Fig. 1, outer perimeter edge of 10), wherein the first surface (34) of the plate (10) extends substantially continuously from (Fig. 1) the outer perimeter edge (outer edge of 10) to the plurality of flaps (as modified below, proximate 38),
but fails to disclose wherein plate includes a plurality of flaps integrally formed at the first surface of the plate, wherein each of the plurality of flaps is resiliently biased such that each of the plurality of flaps is moveable between a first position, in which each of the plurality of flaps is substantially planar with the first surface of the plate, and a second position, in which each of the plurality of flaps extends inwardly within the aperture when the fastener engages each of the plurality of flaps during installation of the fastener in the aperture, wherein each of the plurality of flaps is automatically moveable from the second position to the first position after the fastener is installed within the aperture of the plate so as to cover the head of the fastener.
However, Olvera discloses wherein the plate (7) includes a plurality of flaps (49) integrally formed (Fig. 1) at the first surface (top of 7) of the plate (7), wherein each of the plurality of flaps 949) is resiliently biased (Col 5 lines 62-67) such that each of the plurality of flaps (49) is moveable between a first position (Fig. 2), in which each of the plurality of flaps (49) is substantially planar with (Fig. 2) the first surface (top of 7) of the plate (7), and a second position (Fig. 6C), in which the flap (49) extends inwardly within (Fig. 6C) the aperture (29) when the fastener (nail) engages the flap (49) during installation of the fastener (nail) in the aperture (29), wherein each of the plurality of flaps (49) is automatically moveable from (Col 5 lines 62-67) the second position (Fig. 6C) to the first position (Fig. 2) after the fastener (nail) is installed within (Fig. 8) the aperture (29) of the plate (7) so as to cover the head (of the nail) of the fastener (nail).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof structure of Choiniere wherein plate includes a plurality of flaps integrally formed at the first surface of the plate, wherein each of the plurality of flaps is resiliently biased such that each of the plurality of flaps is moveable between a first position, in which each of the plurality of flaps is substantially planar with the first surface of the plate, and a second position, in which each of the plurality of flaps extends inwardly within the aperture when the fastener engages each of the plurality of flaps during installation of the fastener in the aperture, wherein each of the plurality of flaps is automatically moveable from the second position to the first position after the fastener is installed within the aperture of the plate so as to cover the head of the fastener as disclosed by Olvera in order to prevent intrusion of unwanted material into the aperture after installation.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 (for the reasons stated in the previous rejection) is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to any of the combination of references relied upon in the above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635