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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-22 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 09/11/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1, 13-14, and 22-23 are amended.
The Section 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
However, new Section 103 rejections have been implemented to reflect Applicant’s amendments.
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) 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folkersen et al. (US 2018/0313088 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14,
Folkersen teaches a plurality (a bundle) of shingles laid up in courses on a roof wherein the shingles may be provided in the form of rolls with an adhesive strip wherein a plurality of the rolls may be applied to a roof and may be applied to various portions or areas of a roof as shown in Figures 1, 3, and 12A-B and thus may be structurally the same as a “kit” comprising a plurality of bundles (Folkersen: abstract; Figs. 1-3, 9, and 12A-B; par. 0043 and 0086-0089).
Each bundle of roofing shingles comprises may be considered a plurality of rows in a given roofing area or section and thus each bundle may comprise: at least four rows of roofing shingles as shown in Figures 1 and 3, which would include a first, second, third, and fourth roofing shingle row (Folkersen: Fig. 1). The first roofing shingle row comprises a first roofing shingle which would inherently have a first length. The second roofing shingle row, located above the first row, comprises a second roofing shingle which would inherently have a second length and may be considered to have a third roofing shingle inherently having a third length wherein said third roofing shingle and the second roofing shingle may be considered adjacent to each other. Figures 1 and 3 details an embodiment in which a second row having the second and third roofing shingles have different lengths, such as the second length being greater than the third length as the lengths may be cut successively shorter (Folkersen: Figs. 1 and 3; par. 0058).
The rolls may comprise a single, dual, or a plurality of adhesive strips and thus may incorporate a plurality of rows that may have the lengths adjusted as explained above (Folkersen: par. 0086 and 0087). As the roll may have a plurality of rows and are technically stacked in roll form as they may be placed on one another as is the nature of the roll structurally, prior to installing on the roof. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the number of adhesive strips and thus the number of rows in the roll, forming a stack of a plurality of rows, to achieve the desired started shingle structure prior to applying to a roof.
Regarding claims 2-3, 9-10, and 15-16,
Folkersen teaches the bundle of roofing shingles according to claim 1 and the kit according to claim 14. Folkersen does not explicitly teach wherein the first length is equal to a total of the second length and the third length and the first length being greater than the total of the second length and the third length and wherein the second length is 2/3 of the first length, and the third length is ½ of the first length and wherein the second length is less than 2/3 and greater than 1/3 of the first length, and the third length is less than 1/3 of the first length.
However, adjusting the size and/or using different size shingles for different rows is taught and suggested by Folkersen. For example, Fig. 12A and 12B show a shingle 100 that has a much greater length compared to adjacent shingle rows in addition to teaching the shingle 100 may be a starter shingle in the rows and may be cut or torn along a lengthwise perforation to get the desired length to cover the desired surface shape and dimension of the roof with an example of successively shorter lengths from one row being utilized as an example or forming shingles of differing overlapping staggered patterns (Folkersen: par. 0054-0071 and 0084-0085).
Therefore, lacking criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to adjust the first, second, and third shingle lengths to fit the desired roof dimensions of coverage with the desired overlapping patterns as taught by Folkersen. Thus, it would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to cut the first, second, and third shingles in the claimed patterns and relative thicknesses to fit the desired roofing shingle coverage and patterns.
Regarding claims 4 and 17,
Folkersen teaches the bundle of roofing shingles according to claim 1. Folkersen further teaches the third roofing shingle row, located above the second roofing shingle row, comprising a fourth roofing shingle having the first length as the shingles may be the same length as the first shingles in the first row (Folkersen: Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 18-19,
Folkersen teaches the bundle of roofing shingles according to claim 4. Folkersen further teaches the fourth roofing shingle row is located above the third roofing shingle row and comprises a fifth roofing shingle and a sixth roofing shingle adjacent to each other and wherein the fourth roofing wherein the fifth roofing shingle has the second length and wherein the sixth roofing shingle has the third length as they may be in the same size and shape as said second and third roofing shingle shown in adapted Fig. 3 above (Folkersen: Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 7 and 8,
Folkersen teaches the bundle of roofing shingles according to claim 6. Folkersen further teaches a fifth roofing shingle row located below the first roofing shingle row, as a bottommost row in the bundle and wherein the fifth roofing shingle row comprising a seventh roofing shingle and an eighth roofing shingle, wherein the seventh roofing shingle is adjacent to the eight roofing shingle, and wherein the seventh roofing shingle has the second length, and the eight roofing shingle has the third length as they may have the same size and shape as the second and third shingles as shown in adapted Fig. 3 above (Folkersen: Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 11 and 20,
Folkersen teaches the bundle of roofing shingles according to claim 1 and the kit according to claim 14. A single roofing shingle in the labeled first shingle row may be considered to be the entirety of the claimed first row of a first shingle and thus would satisfy the claims.
Regarding claims 12 and 21,
Folkersen teaches the bundle of roofing shingles according to claim 1 and the kit according to claim 14. The second shingle row may be considered to include only the second and third roofing shingles as they are repeating adjacent shingles having the claimed lengths for the second and third shingles.
Regarding claims 13 and 23,
Folkersen teaches the bundle of roofing shingles according to claim 1 and the kit according to claim 14. The limitations requiring the first roofing shingle is “pre-cut at one or more perforated regions to create at least one of the second roofing shingles or the third roofing shingle” is product by process limitations. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. The claims will be met by the first shingle being placed in regions of perforations.
Folkersen further teaches each shingle, and thus the first, second, and/or third shingle be in regions with markings, which may be perforations, that aid in alignment for cutting (Folkersen: claims 7 and 10).
Regarding claim 22,
Folkersen teaches the kit according to claim 14. Folkersen further teaches a plurality of bundles are placed on different areas of a roof as shown in Figures 12A and 12B (Folkersen: Figs. 12A-B; par. 0098). Thus, the multiple plurality of bundles for different regions of a roof may be considered a Kit with a plurality of second bundles of roofing shingle rows which comprise a single roofing shingle wherein each roofing shingle in the second bundles of a roofing shingles has the first length as shown in Figure 4 (Folkersen: Fig. 4; par. 0038).
As a plurality of rolls may be applied to a roof, there may be considered a second stack of second bundles of roofing shingles prior to installing the roofing shingles as explained in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant generally argues that Folkersen does not teach or suggest the amendment limitations.
The arguments are not found persuasive for the reasons explained in the updated rejection above. Please see the updated prior art rejection for further details on how Folkersen meets the amended claims.
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 Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783