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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 30 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “one or more other claims would be subject to rejoinder”. This is not found persuasive because this is not a valid grounds of traversal.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication # 2007/0266657 to Gembala.
Regarding claim 1, Gembala teaches in Figure 1 [annotated below], a weatherproof [moisture (Paragraph 0006)] bridge gap fascia cover (A) [drip edge 50 covers a gap in anchoring flange 12 of edge closure 10] comprising: a fascia board cover portion (B), and a bridge gap interface portion (C), wherein the bridge gap interface portion (C) includes a cap portion (D) extending outwardly from the fascia board cover portion (B) and a face portion (E) extending downwardly from the cap portion (D).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gembala teaches in Figure 1 [annotated above], the fascia board cover portion (B) and bridge gap interface portion (C) is a one-piece construction [as seen].
Regarding claim 3, Gembala teaches in Figure 1 [annotated above], the fascia board cover portion (B) forms a first plane [as seen].
Regarding claim 4, Gembala teaches in Figure 1 [annotated above], the cap portion (D) forms a second plane [as seen].
Regarding claim 5, Gembala teaches in Figure 1 [annotated above], the face portion (E) forms a third plane [as seen].
Regarding claim 6, Gembala teaches in Figure 1 [annotated above], the fascia board cover portion (B) includes a rigidity bend (F).
Regarding claim 10, Gembala teaches in Figure 1 [annotated above], a material comprising an aluminum extrusion (Paragraph 0021).
Claim 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication # 2003/0177708 to Gatherum.
Regarding claim 1, Gatherum teaches in Figure 12, a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover [flashing (Paragraph 0111)] comprising: a fascia board cover portion (120), and a bridge gap interface portion (122), wherein the bridge gap interface portion (122) includes a cap portion (126) extending outwardly from the fascia board cover portion (120) and a face portion (123) extending downwardly from the cap portion (126).
Regarding claim 2, Gatherum teaches in Figure 12, the fascia board cover portion (120) and bridge gap interface portion (122) is a one-piece construction [as seen].
Regarding claim 3, Gatherum teaches in Figure 12, the fascia board cover portion (120) forms a first plane [as seen].
Regarding claim 4, Gatherum teaches in Figure 12, the cap portion (126) forms a second plane [as seen].
Regarding claim 5, Gatherum teaches in Figure 12, the face portion (123) forms a third plane [as seen].
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2007/0266657 to Gembala.
Regarding claim 7, Gembala teaches a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover with a fascia board cover portion but is silent about its height. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the fascia board cover portion with a height of 4 inches or greater since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to have the fascia board cover portion tall enough to cover the gap.
Regarding claim 8, Gembala teaches a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover with a cap portion but is silent about its length. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the cap portion with a length of 0.5 inches or greater from the fascia board cover portion since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to make the cap portion long enough to create the proper drip edge.
Regarding claim 9, Gembala teaches a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover but is silent about its length. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover 10 feet long since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, flashing members are commonly made in 8 foot, 10 foot, 12 foot and 16 foot lengths in order to make them manageable in size and long enough to cover what they intend to cover.
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2003/0177708 to Gatherum in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2006/0080900 to Graham et al.
Regarding claim 6, Gatherum teaches a fascia board cover portion but does not teach it includes a rigidity bend. However, Graham teaches in Figure 22, a fascia board cover portion (320) that includes a rigidity bend (350) (Paragraph 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the flashing of Gatherum with the flashing of Graham with a reasonable expectation of success because Graham teaches the rigidity bends strengthen the cover plate (Paragraph 0067).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2003/0177708 to Gatherum.
Regarding claim 7, Gatherum teaches a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover with a fascia board cover portion but is silent about its height. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the fascia board cover portion with a height of 4 inches or greater since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to have the fascia board cover portion tall enough to cover the gap.
Regarding claim 8, Gatherum teaches a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover with a cap portion but is silent about its length. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the cap portion with a length of 0.5 inches or greater from the fascia board cover portion since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to make the cap portion long enough to create the proper drip edge.
Regarding claim 9, Gatherum teaches a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover but is silent about its length. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover 10 feet long since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, flashing members are commonly made in 8 foot, 10 foot, 12 foot and 16 foot lengths in order to make them manageable in size and long enough to cover what they intend to cover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm EST.
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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635