DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 1 April 2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-14 are pending. The rejection over Legler under 102 is withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35 and 37, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The text of those sections of the MPEP not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8,12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legler et al. US 2022/0161868.
Legler et al. have base structure 29, rigid roof panel 14,24,28 fastened to the base structure and comprising a composite 30,32 with edge area 34, sealing system mass 36, primer 42, and paint 44.
Legler fails to teach the sealing layers are in the form of multiple layers of the same material. However, the difference between claim 1 and 6 amounts to a duplication of parts, i.e., more than one sealing layer. The duplication of parts, i.e., more than one sealing layer would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art and absent new and unexpected results does not confirm patentable significance. See MPEP 2144. In this case it would have been obvious to apply two or more coats of the same material for adequate coverage.
Claim 2, the mass 36 comprises solvent free acrylate, paragraph 17.
Claim 3, the mass 36 is UV hardened, paragraph 15.
Claim 5, 12, the edge 34 is milled, a mechanical treatment.
Claim 6, Legler et al. have a filing area within design paint 44.
Legler et al. do not disclose the time of UV application, deemed to be an obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in this art a graduate engineer or experienced designer to ensure complete drying of the paint.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in Legler et al. sufficient UV application time to ensure drying.
Claim(s) 4, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legler et al. in view of van de Steur US 6685106.
Legler et al. do not detail mixing the sealing mass with a gas. Prior to the filing of applicant van de Steur taught that paint may be applied by a spraying process with the paint being mixed with air to increase the volume of the paint, claim 4 of the van de Steur patent. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in Legler et al. spray painting mixed with air as taught by van de Steur to increase the volume of the paint.
Claim 11, further UV treatment to the paint layers of van de Steur after both layers are applied is deemed to be an obvious expedient to ensure drying.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach multiple layers of the sealant. This is true per se but having multiple layers of the same material in a coating would not cause the product to perform different from one in which one layer is applied and as such does not impart a patentable difference.
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 FRANK J VINEIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1547. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Greg Tryder can be reached at (571) 270-7365. 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.
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights