Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/533,321

ROOFING PRODUCTS WITH IMPROVED NAIL ZONE, ROOFING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INSTALLING THEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 08, 2023
Examiner
KENNY, DANIEL J
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Certainteed LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
634 granted / 1031 resolved
+9.5% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1062
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.2%
+9.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
§112
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1031 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 12-16 and 18-21 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubka (11,021,876) in view of Grubka (9,758,970) and Chich (4,923,913). 1. Grubka ‘876, figs. 17-18, teaches a roofing shingle including an upper edge, a lower edge, a first end, a second end, a headlap section 604, and an exposed section 606 below the headlap section, wherein a nail zone (col. 9, lines 12-18, fig. 17) extends across the roofing shingle from the first end to the second end within the headlap section, the roofing shingle comprising: a top shingle layer 602 including a top surface (the exposed surface, fig. 17) and a bottom surface; a reinforcement strip (Grupka teaches a “reinforcement tape” included in the overlay 602 nail zone, col. 9, line 14), the tape overlapping with the nail zone at least because the tape is in the nail zone; and a material (adhesive 616) disposed within the nail zone. Grubka adhesive 616 is not expressly taught as being self-sealing hot-melt adhesive capable of forming a seal around the nail that punctures the shingle to secure the shingle to the deck (significantly, Examiner indicates that at least one of Applicant’s disclosed self-sealing materials is adhesive (hot melt adhesive, para. 54)) and Grubka does not expressly teach the reinforcement tape “secured to the bottom surface” of the top shingle layer (Grupka only teaches the tape reinforcing the nail zone). Chich teaches shingle adhesive is self-sealing “hot-melt”, col. 4, line 2, adhesive, abstract, the adhesive being capable of sealing around the nail puncture at least to some degree just as it seals (“self-sealing”) and adheres (“adhesive”) the shingle layers together (“The inventive adhesive composition may be applied to a…shingle…in the form of an adhesive strip…along an area which is to be contacted with a second roofing element”, col. 3, lines 60-69). In other words, after the top Chich shingle is placed on the bottom shingle, the self-sealing adhesive therebetween, if a nail is driven through the shingles at the adhesive, some of the adhesive would contact the nail at the puncture to seal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Grupka adhesive to be hot-melt self-sealing adhesive forming a seal around the nail that punctures the shingle to secure the shingle to prevent leaks at the penetration. Grubka ‘970 teaches reinforcement 35 can be secured to a bottom surface (or a top surface) of the top shingle layer, col. 11, lines 45-50. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Grubka ‘876 reinforcement to be secured to a bottom surface of the top shingle layer for enhanced pull-through, col. 8, lines 58-67. 2. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches the roofing shingle according to claim 1, Grubka ‘876 further comprising roofing granules disposed on the top surface of the top shingle layer (col. 4, line 50). 3. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches the roofing shingle according to claim 1, Grubka ‘876 further teaching the top shingle layer is one of a plurality of shingle layers (layer 608 is another layer). 4. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches the roofing shingle according to claim 3, Grubka ‘876 further teaching the plurality of shingle layers includes a shim layer disposed under the top shingle layer (underlay layer 608 is a shim layer as it essentially levels up layer 602). 5. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches the roofing shingle according to claim 4, Grubka ‘876 further teaching the shim layer is disposed under the reinforcement strip (overlay layer 602 is on top of underlay layer 608, the reinforcement therebetween, Fig. 18). 7. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches the roofing shingle according to claim 1, Chich further teaching the self-sealing material is a polymer layer (the self-sealing material is thermoplastic elastomer, abstract, elastomers being a specific type of polymer). 8. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches the roofing shingle according to claim 7, Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich further teaching the adhesive layer is adjacent to the reinforcement strip because the reinforcement is on the top shingle layer back side and is contacting the adhesive. 12. Grubka ‘876 adhesive 616 is not expressly taught as extending continuously across a width of the roofing shingle or is segmented across a width of the roofing shingle. Grupka ‘876 adhesive 210 of the shingle embodiment shown in figs. 2-5 extends continuously across the shingle width as seen in fig. 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Grubka ‘876 adhesive 616 to extend continuously across a width of the shingle for strength. 13. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches the roofing shingle according to claim 1, Grubka ‘970 further teaching compared to a shingle of the same construction but without the reinforcement strip, the reinforcement strip increases nail pull strength by at least 20%, col. 8, lines 58-67. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Grubka ‘876 to have, compared to a shingle of the same construction but without the reinforcement strip, the reinforcement strip increases nail pull strength by at least 20% to improve shingle wind uplift resistance. 14. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches the roofing shingle according to claim 1, Grupka ‘970 further teaching reinforcement strip 35 extends across the entire nail zone. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Grubka ‘876 reinforcement to extend continuously across a width of the shingle as taught by Grupka ‘970 for strength. 15. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches the roofing shingle according to claim 1, Grupka ‘876 further teaching the reinforcement strip extends into exposed section 606 because exposed section 606 includes the nail zone as seen in fig. 17. 16. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches the roofing shingle according to claim 1, Grupka ‘876 further teaching the nail zone is delineated on the top surface of the top shingle layer because shingle alignment guide 614 also serves to help know where the nail zone is, as the nail zone is in close proximity to the guide. 18. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches a method of producing the roofing shingle according to claim 1, Grupka ‘876 further teaching the method comprising providing the top shingle layer including the top surface and the bottom surface and providing the reinforcement strip as a “carrier”, as broadly recited, for the adhesive at least because the Grupka ‘876 reinforcement holds the adhesive from the time it first contacts the adhesive, Chich further teaching securing the reinforcement strip to the bottom surface of the top shingle layer because the reinforcement strip is on the bottom surface of the top shingle layer. 19. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches a roofing system comprising: a roof structure (“substrate”, col. 1, lines 27-40); a first roofing shingle according to claim 1 disposed on the roof structure; a first mechanical fastener (the nails in the nail zone) securing the first roofing shingle to the roof structure, wherein the first mechanical fastener is disposed within the nail zone and passes through the top shingle layer and the reinforcement strip (the strip is in the nail zone). 20. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches a method of installing a roofing system according to claim 19, the method comprising: positioning the first roofing shingle on the roof structure, col. 1, lines 58-63; and driving the first mechanical fastener through the nail zone of the first roofing shingle and into the roof structure so as to secure the first roofing shingle to the roof structure, wherein the first mechanical fastener passes through the top shingle layer and the reinforcement strip of the first roofing shingle. 21. Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich teaches a roofing system comprising: a roof structure (“substrate”); a first roofing shingle and a second roofing shingle, each according to claim 1, disposed on the roof structure, such that the second roofing shingle is disposed on top of the first roofing shingle so as to cover a portion of the headlap section of the first roofing shingle while leaving the exposed section of the first roofing shingle uncovered, col. 1, lines 27-41; a first mechanical fastener securing the first roofing shingle to the roof structure, wherein the first mechanical fastener is disposed within the nail zone and passes through the top shingle layer and the reinforcement strip, col. 1, lines 57-65; and a second mechanical fastener securing the second roofing shingle to the roof structure, wherein the second mechanical fastener is disposed within the nail zone of the second roofing shingle and passes through the top shingle layer and the reinforcement strip of the second roofing shingle, col. 1, lines 57-65. Claim 11 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich and in further view of Larson (7,368,155). The Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich self-sealing hot-melt adhesive is not expressly taught as being a self-sealing hot-melt adhesive comprising styrene-isoprene-styrene. Larson teaches it is old in the art for a roofing adhesive to comprise styrene-isoprene-styrene, claim 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a the self-sealing hot-melt adhesive to comprise a self-sealing hot-melt adhesive comprising styrene-isoprene-styrene for strength. Claim 17 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubka ‘876 in view of Grubka ‘970 and Chich and in further view of Ellott (7,877,949). Grubka ‘876 does not expressly teach that a width of each shingle is in a range from 24 to 48 inches, a height of the headlap area is in a range from 4 to 12 inches, and a height of the exposed area is in a range from 3 to 9 inches. Elliot teaches a shingle width is in a range from 24 to 48 inches, a height of a headlap area is in a range from 4 to 12 inches, and a height of an exposed area is in a range from 3 to 9 inches, col. 4, lines 52-67. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a width of each shingle is in a range from 24 to 48 inches, a height of the headlap area is in a range from 4 to 12 inches, and a height of the exposed area is in a range from 3 to 9 inches for an optimum ratio between the exposed shingle part and the underlying part that is not exposed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument that “Chich fails to disclose a shingle with a self- sealing material comprising a hot melt adhesive…”, see col. 4, line 2 disclosing the Chich shingle having a self- sealing material comprising a hot melt adhesive. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 Glessner can be reached on (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. /DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 08, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 15, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601194
C-CLAMP BODY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE THEREOF FOR SECURING A FLEXIBLE BUILDING WALL PANEL UNDER TENSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595673
BEAM-COLUMN JOINT OF PREFABRICATED SELF-CENTERING RC FRAME BASED ON SMA MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584516
Bearing adapters for single-axis trackers
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584321
A FLOOR ELEMENT FOR FORMING A FLOOR COVERING AND A FLOOR COVERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571201
CONCRETE-FILLABLE PREFABRICATED CARTRIDGES FOR CONSTRUCTING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+21.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1031 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month