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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 10/13/2025.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 9-11 are amended, and claims 3, 6 and 8 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7 and 9-19 are pending and examined.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollard(6,865,858; cited on PTO 892), as evidenced by Scott(3,771,254; cited on PTO 892) or Miller(4,044,725).
Pollard discloses a covering system(see Fig. 1) comprising:
a joist(16) having an upper edge(see Fig. 1);
a strip(10/12, 14) having atop side and a bottom side, the strip being positionable over the upper edge(see Fig. 1);
a pair of seams(32, see column 5, lines 39-45 and Figs. 9 and 12-13) extending along a length of the strip, the strip being foldable along the pair of seams(see column 5, lines 39-45), the strip being U-shaped when folded along the pair of seams(see Fig. 1); and
an adhesive covering the bottom side(see column 4, lines 7-11), the adhesive affixing the strip to the upper edge;
wherein the strip prohibits penetration of moisture into the upper edge when the strip is affixed to the upper edge, the strip further comprising a plastic material, the plastic material inhibiting penetration of moisture into the upper edge when the strip is positioned over the joist (the strip is plastic or metal, see column 3, lines 57-59 and is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation).
Pollard lacks the strip coated with an insecticide.
The use of insecticides on plastic material is considered well known(such as evidenced by the plastic bag coated with an insecticide of Scott, see column 1, lines 35-39; such as evidenced by the plastic collar coated with an insecticide of Miller, see column 4, lines 16-21).
Therefore, the strip having an insecticide coating thereon to repel insects is considered obvious to and a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the strip and specific design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 2, Pollard discloses the covering system of claim 1, wherein the pair of seams are spaced from one another to define a medial section(12) between the pair of seams(see Figs. 3 and 4), each of the seams being spaced from a respective lateral edge of the strip to define outer sections(14) of the strip between each of the seams and the lateral edges of the strip, the medial section having a width corresponding to a width of the upper edge(see Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Pollard discloses the covering system of claim 3, wherein the width of the medial section being between 1 inch and 4 inches(see column 4, lines 31- 37 and Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 5, Pollard discloses the covering system of claim 2, wherein each of the outer sections has a width between inch and 1 inch(see Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 12, Pollard discloses the covering system of claim 1, wherein the strip is elongated(see Figs. 3-4 and 11-13).
Regarding claims 7 and 9-11, Pollard discloses the covering system of claim 1, but lacks the specific material of the strip being a composite or thermoplastic material.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific material as long as the strip is insect repellent(see page 4, line 19 thru page 5, line 2).
The use of a composite/thermoplastic material for a deterrent strip is considered well known in the art.
Therefore the specific material used for the strip is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 12, Pollard discloses the covering system of claim 1, wherein the strip is elongated(see Figs. 3-4 and 11-13).
Regarding claim 13, Pollard discloses the covering system of claim 1, the joist further comprising wood(see column 1, lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 17, Pollard discloses the covering system of claim 1, wherein the strip has a length corresponding with a length of the joist(see column 2, lines 17-19).
Also, regarding claims 13 and 17, Pollard discloses the covering system of claim 1, wherein the related art is discussed as made of wood members and the strip is cut to length but lacks the joist 16 specifically comprising wood and the strip the length of the joist.
The specific material of the joist and length of the strip are considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof. Regarding claim 16, Pollard discloses the covering system of claim 1, but lacks the specific thickness of the strip.
Regarding claim 16, Pollard discloses the covering system of claim 1, but lacks the specific thickness of the strip.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific thickness of the strip(see page 4, lines 11-12).
Therefore, the specific thickness of the strip is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Claims 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollard in view of Pruitt(7,571,576; cited on PTO 892) and Shipman(6,415,581 ; cited on PTO 892).
Regarding claims 14-15, Pollard disclose the covering system of claim 1, but lacks an end member covering a joint/seam between 2 joists.
Pruitt discloses a joint cover(130) between two elongated cover elements(120, 120’, see Figs. 14-15).
Shipman discloses a cover(18) between two elongated cover elements(20, see Figs. 10 and 16), the cover is of the same material and smaller length than the cover elements.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the system of Pollard with a cover/end member over the intersection of joists of the material of the strip, such as disclosed by Pruitt and Shipman, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to cover the joint between the members and inhibiting moisture from entering the intersection. The use of adhesive, such as used to connect the strip to the joist is considered well within the purview of a skilled artisan to connect the end member to the strip.
Regarding claims 18-19, Pollard and Pruitt and Shipman disclose the moisture shielding system of claims 1-17 as discussed above(and will not be repeated here).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous 112 and 102 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the use of an insecticide coating have been fully and carefully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, the use of insecticide coatings is well known for use with a plastic when insect damage may occur. Both the Scott and Miller references disclose plastic elements coated with an insecticide to prevent damage to the element. The use of an insecticide coating in different plastic elements shows that the use of this coating on plastic is well known and useable in a variety of items to repel insects and protect the items from insect damage. Therefore, the examiner asserts that the well known use of a coating on a plastic cover of a joist where insects are prevalent would have been obvious for a skilled artisan in order to have prevented damage to the joist/cover.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims and 112 and 102 rejections have been discussed above and/or moot as having not been maintained.
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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schulner(2006/0137265) discloses a cover for a board made of a composite(see para. [0016]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/