DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges claims 1, 11 and 16 have been amended, claims 3-5, 12 and 17 have been cancelled, claims 20-22 have been added and claims 11, 13-16 and 18-19 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been considered but are moot because the amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
The Examiner notes the Applicant’s request for rejoinder of the withdrawn claims. However, since claim 1 has not been found allowable, rejoinder is not possible at this time. However, should claim 1 be found allowable, these claims could and would be rejoined then.
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, 2, 6, 9, 10 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 5,321,921 to Holt.
Regarding claim 1, Holt teaches in Figure 4, a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover [drip cap (Column 3, Line 13)] comprising: a fascia board cover portion (12) [vertical mounting flange (Column 3, Line 16)] forming a substantially vertical first plane (Column 3, Line 16), and a bridge gap interface portion [the portion that extends away from the wall 34 in Figure 12], wherein the bridge gap interface portion includes a cap portion (20) [horizontal flange (Column 3, Line 25)] extending outwardly from the fascia board cover portion (12), forming a second plane, and a face portion (18) [drip flange (Column 3, Line 28)] extending downwardly from the cap portion (20) forming a substantially vertical (Column 4, Line 9) third plane.
Regarding claim 2, Holt teaches in Figure 4, the fascia board cover portion (12), the cap portion (20) and the face portion (18) is a one-piece construction (Column 1, Line 46).
Regarding claim 6, Holt teaches in Figure 4, the fascia board cover portion (12) includes a rigidity bend [it is bent or shaped to form the cap portion 20 (Column 2, Line 61)] and it is made from a rigid material (Column 3, Line 67).
Regarding claim 9, Holt teaches the weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover is 10 feet long (Column 3, Line 68).
Regarding claim 10, Holt teaches the weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover comprises an aluminum extrusion (Column 5, Lines 45-47).
Regarding claim 20, Holt teaches in Figure 4, the substantially vertical plane is parallel to the substantially vertical third plane, since both planes are vertical (Column 3, Line 16) and (Column 4, Line 9), they must be parallel.
Regarding claim 21, Holt teaches in Figure 4, the second plane is perpendicular to the substantially vertical first plane since one plane is vertical and the other is horizontal (Column 3, Line 25).
Regarding claim 22, Holt teaches in Figure 4, the substantially vertical plane is parallel to the substantially vertical third plane since both planes are vertical (Column 3, Line 16) and (Column 4, Line 9), they must be parallel, and wherein the second plane is perpendicular to the substantially vertical first plane since one plane is vertical and the other is horizontal (Column 3, Line 25).
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 5,884,435 to David et al.
Regarding claim 1, David teaches in Figures 3 and 4, a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover (10) [flashing (Column 3, Line 1)] comprising: a fascia board cover portion (20) [first generally planar vertical portion (Column 3, Line 12)] forming a substantially vertical (Column 3, Line 12) first plane (Column 3, Line 12), and a bridge gap interface portion (30) [first generally planar extending portion (Column 3, Lines 14-15)], wherein the bridge gap interface portion (30) includes a cap portion (50) [second generally planar extending portion (Column 3, Lines 19-20)] extending outwardly from the fascia board cover portion (20), forming a second plane (Column 3, Line 19), and a face portion (60) [third generally planar vertical portion (Column 3, Lines 21-22)] extending downwardly from the cap portion (40) forming a substantially vertical (Column 3, Line 22) third plane (Column 3, Line 22).
Regarding claim 2, David teaches in Figures 3 and 4, the fascia board cover portion (20) and bridge gap interface portion (30) is a one-piece construction.
Regarding claim 6, David teaches in Figures 3 and 4, the fascia board cover portion (20) includes a rigidity [brake formed (Column 3, Line 4)] bend (26) [edge portion (Column 3, Line 14)].
Regarding claim 10, David teaches the weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover is made from a vinyl extrusion [plastic (Column 3, Lines 8-11)]
Regarding claim 20, David teaches in Figures 3 and 4, the substantially vertical plane is parallel to the substantially vertical third plane since both planes are vertical (Column 3, Line 12) and (Column 3, Line 22), they must be parallel.
Regarding claim 21, David teaches in Figures 3 and 4, the second plane is perpendicular to the substantially vertical first plane (Column 3, Lines 55-57).
Regarding claim 22, David teaches in Figures 3 and 4, the substantially vertical plane is parallel to the substantially vertical third plane since both planes are vertical (Column 3, Line 12) and (Column 3, Line 22), they must be parallel, and wherein the second plane is perpendicular to the substantially vertical first plane (Column 3, Lines 55-57).
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 5,321,921 to Holt.
Regarding claim 7, Holt teaches a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover with a fascia board cover portion but is silent about its height being about 4 inches or greater. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain height for 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). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the height of the fascia board cover portion to be greater than 4 inches since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a height solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the height of Holt would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 8, Holt teaches a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover with a cap portion but is silent about it extending 0.5 inches or greater in length. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain length for the cap 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). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the length of the cap portion to be greater than 0.5 inches since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a length solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the height of Holt would perform equally well.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 5,884,435 to David et al.
Regarding claim 7, David teaches a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover with a fascia board cover portion but is silent about its height being about 4 inches or greater. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain height for 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). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the height of the fascia board cover portion to be greater than 4 inches since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a height solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the height of David would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 8, David teaches a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover with a cap portion but is silent about it extending 0.5 inches or greater in length. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain length for the cap 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). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the length of the cap portion to be greater than 0.5 inches since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a length solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the height of David would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 9, David teaches a weatherproof bridge gap fascia cover but it is silent about it being 10 feet long. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a certain length for the weatherproof bridge fascia cover 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, flashings in the length of 10 feet are old and well known and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and obtain predictable results. Since flashings commonly come in 10 feet lengths, installers would know how to handle such an arrangement.
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 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
Prosecution Insights