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 .
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nebesnak (US Patent No 7,638,180) in view of Shah (US Patent No 7,614,194).
Referring to claim 1: Nebesnak teaches a roof panel repair device for sealing seams between roof panels or for repairing damage to the roof panels, said device comprising: a panel (item 10) being appliable to a seam between roof panels on a roof, said top layer being comprised of a fluid impermeable material (col 2, lines 48-50) wherein said top layer is configured to inhibit precipitation from passing through said seam between said roof panels, said bottom layer being comprised of an adhesive material (item 18) thereby facilitating said bottom layer to adhere to said roof panels for retaining said panel over said seam; and a protective sheet (item 20) being removably applied to said bottom layer of said panel such that said protective sheet inhibits said bottom layer from adhering. Nebesnak does not teach said panel has a length being greater than a width of said panel thereby facilitating said panel to extend along a full length of said seam while covering a minimum area of said pair of roof panels. However, Shah teaches said panel has a length being greater than a width of said panel thereby facilitating said panel to extend along a length of said seam while covering a minimum area of said pair of roof panels (figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Nebesnak with the shape and size taught by Shah in order to cover a particular seam or opening. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create the panel of Shah in whatever length necessary in order to cover a desired length of seam.
Regarding claim 4: Nebesnak teaches a roof panel repair device for sealing seams between roof panels or for repairing damage to the roof panels, said device comprising: a panel (item 10) being appliable to a seam between roof panels on a roof, said top layer being comprised of a fluid impermeable material wherein said top layer is configured to inhibit precipitation from passing through said seam between said roof panels, said bottom layer being comprised of an adhesive material (item 18) thereby facilitating said bottom layer to adhere to said roof panels for retaining said panel over said seam, and a protective sheet (item 20) being removably applied to said bottom layer of said panel such that said protective sheet inhibits said bottom layer from adhering, said protective sheet being positioned on a bottom surface of said bottom layer having said protective sheet completely covering said bottom surface of said bottom layer (figure 2). Nebesnak does not teach wherein said panel has a length being greater than a width of said panel such that said panel has sufficient length to extend along a full length of said seam while covering a minimum area of said pair of roof panels. However, Shah teaches said panel having a length being greater than a width of said panel (figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Nebesnak with the shape and size taught by Shah in order to cover a particular seam or opening. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create the panel of Shah in whatever length necessary in order to cover a desired length of seam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Shah teaches the joining of three membranes to make a T joint and therefore would not teach the length covering the whole seam. However, as noted above it would have been obvious to choose any specific length in order to sufficiently cover an designated joint length. Shah is meant to seal a joint between two or more membranes. One of ordinary skill would not use Shah to only cover a portion of the joint. One of ordinary skill would look to seal the complete joint and therefore it would have been obvious to interpret Shah to allow for complete joint sealing.
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 PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635