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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 9/20/25 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baker US 2015/0176282 A1 (hereinafter ‘Baker’).
In regard to claim 1, Baker teaches a roof skirt system for diverting water comprising:
a first section (100) including an overhang portion (105B) and an underlayment portion (105A);
a bottom surface of the underlayment portion includes an adhesive and a removable cover over the adhesive (see [0026]);
the bottom surface of the underlayment portion of the first section is configured to be affixed directly to a roof edge (see “roof deck surface” in [0026]) when the removable cover is removed (see step 810, fig. 8);
the roof skirt system is secured to the roof edge without using any mechanical fasteners (see step 815, fig. 8), and
a continuation section includes an overhang portion and an underlayment portion (note that the continuation section is made in one piece with the first section, thus Baker meets the claim).
Alternatively,
Although not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to provide a continuation section just like the first section (including an overhang and an underlayment portion) so as to enable installation of the system along long roof edges with manageable sized pieces.
In regard to claim 3, Baker teaches the claimed invention wherein the continuation section and the first section as formed from a single piece of material (see Baker fig. 1 -Note that the continuation and first sections form element 100).
In regard to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to make the continuation section customizable in length so that they can be cut to specific roof dimensions and thus make the system versatile and able to fit various roof lengths.
Claims 2, 5-8 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Budd US 6,449,910 B1 (hereinafter ‘Budd’).
In regard to claim 2, Baker does not explicitly teach the first section includes an overlap area, the continuation section includes an overlap area with an overlap adhesive and an overlap cover; and
the overlap area of the continuation section is configured to affix to the overlap area of the first section when the overlap cover is removed.
Budd teaches a roof skirt system wherein a first section (section 111) and a continuation section (other section 111) include an overlap area (end 15 as noted in col. 4, ln. 60-64), the overlap section of the continuation configured to affix to the overlap of the first section (see col. 4, ln. 60-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide overlapping areas to the first and continuation sections configured to be affixed, as taught by Budd, so as to provide for a substantially water tight roof edge. Further, it would have been obvious to provide the continuation section having the same characteristics as the first section (including an adhesive and adhesive cover).
In regard to claims 5 and 8, Baker teaches the removable cover of the first underlayment portion can be peeled off to expose the adhesive (see [0026]).
Baker is silent regarding providing a corner section.
Budd teaches a roof skirt system comprising a corner section (20/50), wherein the corner section includes an overhang portion (35) and a first underlayment portion (12);
wherein the overhang portion extends over a corner of a roof edge (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a corner section in the system of Baker, as taught by Budd, so as to allow for waterproofing the entirety of a roof structure.
In regard to claim 6, the combination of Baker/Budd teaches the claimed invention further comprising:
the corner section includes a second underlayment portion (see Budd fig. 2);
the second underlayment portion includes a bottom surface including an adhesive and removable cover which can be peeled off to expose the adhesive (note that as noted in the above rejections, it would have been obvious to make the corner section having the same characteristics as the first section, that is having an underlayment and overhang sections and the adhesive with cover (See claim 1) because this facilitates manufacturing and installation.
In regard to claim 7, it is noted that the combination of Baker/Budd teaches the claimed invention as noted in the above rejections for claims 1 and 2.
It is noted that the overhang portion of the combination is configured to be positioned beneath a roof as taught by Baker (see [0040] steps following step 820) and a plurality of continuation sections can be assembled to cover the entirety of a roof edge. Note that the sections are fully capable of being assembled to cover a roof edge as needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noted that the Budd reference is brought in in the current rejection for its teachings of providing more than one section of roof skirt system, i.e. continuation and corner sections (see Budd col. 4, ln. 56-63).
Conclusion
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 PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 5PM.
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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633