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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wayne (US 8,739,470) in view of Heo (US 2018/0209153).
Regarding claim 1, Wayne discloses a roof system comprising:
a roof deck, wherein the roof deck comprises a rake edge, (Fig 2)
roofing material 22 wherein the roofing material is above the deck (Fig 2) and wherein the roofing material 22 has an end at the rake edge of the roof deck (Fig 2), and
a one-piece apparatus 10, wherein the one-piece apparatus comprises a stem 18, an upper arm 16, and a lower arm 12, wherein the stem, the upper arm, and the lower arm form an F-shape, wherein the stem, the upper arm, and the lower arm are configured to form a three-sided space to accept the thickness of the roofing material 22 (Fig 1-3),
wherein the stem 18 comprises a side (front) opposite the upper arm and the lower arm, wherein the side (front) opposite the upper arm and the lower arm has a uniform surface with a uniform rigidity (Fig 2),
wherein the upper arm 16 and the lower arm 12 of the one-piece apparatus 10 are above the roof deck (Fig 2),
wherein the stem 18 of the one-piece apparatus is situated outside and adjacent to the rake edge of the roof deck (Fig 2), and
wherein the end of the roofing material 22 is situated within the space formed by the stem 18, the upper arm 16, and the lower arm 12 of the one-piece apparatus (Fig 2).
Wayne does not specifically disclose an underlayment, wherein the underlayment is above the roof deck and the roofing material is a plurality of asphalt shingles wherein the plurality of asphalt shingles comprises overlapping rows, wherein the overlapping rows of the plurality of asphalt shingles have a thickness. However, Heo discloses a roof system comprising a rake edge, an underlayment 200, wherein the underlayment is above the roof deck and the roofing material is a plurality of shingles 300 wherein the plurality of asphalt shingles comprises overlapping rows, wherein the overlapping rows of the plurality of shingles have a thickness (Fig 3, 6). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing system of Wayne to include an underlayment and a plurality of shingles as taught by Heo, in order to provide a protective layer between the roof deck and the shingles and to provide a desired appearance to the roof. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Wayne modified by Heo discloses the one piece apparatus, but does not disclose wherein the one-piece apparatus comprises an aluminum alloy extrudate. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an aluminum alloy extrudate, since 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 order to provide an apparatus that has corrosion resistance and ease of fabrication.
Regarding claim 4, Wayne discloses the upper arm 16 has a length, the lower arm 12 has a length, and the length of the lower arm is greater than the length of the upper arm (Fig 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Wayne discloses the lower arm 12 has a thickness, and the thickness of the lower arm is configured to allow the lower arm to be mechanically fastened to the roof deck with a standard roofing fastener (Fig 2), (Col 2,Lines 39-41).
Examiner notes that, even though Wayne does not explicitly recite the lower arm fastened with a standard roofing fastener, these are well known in the art components of a roofing system and therefore are implicitly disclosed by Wayne.
Regarding claim 6, Wayne discloses the stem 18 of the modified one-piece metal apparatus comprises a bottom portion 20 that is angled away from a rake edge of the roof deck (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Wayne discloses the rake edge of the roof deck has a length, and wherein the modified one-piece metal apparatus has a length that is substantially equal to the length of the rake edge (Abstract).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 12-14, Wayne modified by Heo discloses the claimed apparatus, the limitations of claims 8, 9, 12-14 can be seen above in the rejections of claims 1, 4-7.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADRIANA FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8281. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM MONDAY-FRIDAY.
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 GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/ADRIANA FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
11/24/2025