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 Objections
Claim(s) 3, 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 does not further limit claim 1 with the limitation of “a total solar reflectance of at least 20%.
Claim 16 does not further limit claim 14 with the limitation of “a total solar reflectance of at least 20%.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shiao (US Pub. 2012/0157583 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shiao discloses a roofing shingle, comprising:
a substrate; an asphalt-filled layer on a surface of the substrate (Pg. 7, [0068], lines 1-4: “The roofing granules of the present invention can be employed in the manufacture of roofing products, such as asphalt shingles and bituminous membranes, using conventional roofing production processes”);
and a plurality of coated granules on the asphalt-filled layer (Fig. 3, mineral particle 62), wherein each of the coated granules of the plurality of coated granules comprises:
a base particle, and a coating on the base particle (Pg. 1, [0015], lines 1-4: “In one aspect, the present invention provides a process for producing roofing granules comprising providing base particles and a coating composition comprising an inorganic sol material and at least one organic colorant”), the coating comprising:
metal silicate (Pg. 7, [0064], lines 14-18: “In the alternative, the base coating binder can be a conventional metal oxide silicate binder formed from an alkali metal silicate such a sodium silicate and a clay, such as kaolin clay, cured at an elevated temperature in excess of 200 degrees Celsius”), and a reflective pigment (Pg. 7, [0064], lines 3-8: “In this embodiment, roofing granule 30 includes a base particle 32 comprising a mineral particle 34 formed from stone dust having an exterior surface 36 coated with cured base coating composition 42 including a base coating binder 44, and at least one solar reflective pigment 46”), wherein the coated granules of the plurality of coated granules have: an average L* value of less than 30 (Pg. 2, [0015], lines 36-37: Preferably, the organic colorant provides roofing granules having an L* of less than 30”), and a total solar reflectance of 20% to 40% (Pg. 8, see table 2).
Regarding claim 3, Shiao discloses wherein each of the base particles has a total solar reflectance of at least 20% (See id).
Regarding claim 6, Shiao discloses wherein each of the base particles has a particle size of US sieve #80 to US sieve #6 (Pg. 3, [0034], lines 1-10: “The base particle can be a suitably sized mineral particle such as described above, or in the alternative, the base particles can be a solid or hollow glass spheres. Solid and hollow glass spheres are available, for example, from Potters Industries Inc., P.O. Box 840, Valley Forge, Pa. 19482-0840, such as SPHERIGLASS® solid "A" glass spheres product grade 1922 having a mean size of 0.203 mm, product code 602578 having a mean size of 0.59 mm, BALLOTTINI impact beads product grade A with a size range of 600 to 850 micrometers (U.S. sieve size 20-30)”).
Regarding claim 8, Shiao discloses a roofing shingle, comprising:
a substrate; an asphalt-filled layer on a surface of the substrate (Pg. 7, [0068], lines 1-4: “The roofing granules of the present invention can be employed in the manufacture of roofing products, such as asphalt shingles and bituminous membranes, using conventional roofing production processes”);
and a plurality of coated granules on the asphalt-filled layer (Fig. 3, mineral particle 62), wherein each of the coated granules of the plurality of coated granules comprises:
a base particle, and a coating on the base particle (Pg. 1, [0015], lines 1-4: “In one aspect, the present invention provides a process for producing roofing granules comprising providing base particles and a coating composition comprising an inorganic sol material and at least one organic colorant”), the coating comprising:
metal silicate (Pg. 7, [0064], lines 14-18: “In the alternative, the base coating binder can be a conventional metal oxide silicate binder formed from an alkali metal silicate such a sodium silicate and a clay, such as kaolin clay, cured at an elevated temperature in excess of 200 degrees Celsius”), and a reflective pigment (Pg. 7, [0064], lines 3-8: “In this embodiment, roofing granule 30 includes a base particle 32 comprising a mineral particle 34 formed from stone dust having an exterior surface 36 coated with cured base coating composition 42 including a base coating binder 44, and at least one solar reflective pigment 46”), wherein the coated granules of the plurality of coated granules have:
an average L* value, and a total solar reflectance, wherein a ratio of the average L* value to the total solar reflectance is 75 to 150 (Pg. 8, table 2: L*/solar reflectance = 27.73/.232 = 119.5).
Regarding claim 10, Shiao discloses wherein each of the base particles has a total solar reflectance of at least 20% (Pg. 8, see table 2).
Regarding claim 12, Shiao discloses wherein each of the base particles has a particle size of US sieve #80 to US sieve #6 (Pg. 3, [0034], lines 1-10: “The base particle can be a suitably sized mineral particle such as described above, or in the alternative, the base particles can be a solid or hollow glass spheres. Solid and hollow glass spheres are available, for example, from Potters Industries Inc., P.O. Box 840, Valley Forge, Pa. 19482-0840, such as SPHERIGLASS® solid "A" glass spheres product grade 1922 having a mean size of 0.203 mm, product code 602578 having a mean size of 0.59 mm, BALLOTTINI impact beads product grade A with a size range of 600 to 850 micrometers (U.S. sieve size 20-30)”).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiao (US Pub. 2012/0157583 A1) in view of Amsden (US Pub. 2022/0049500 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Shiao discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Amsden, similarly drawn to a solar-reflective roofing granule, wherein each of the base particles comprises at least one of igneous rock or carbonaceous rock (Pg. 2, [0027]: “The base granules may be any suitable material such as minerals typically used in roofing granules. Examples include igneous rocks, argillite, greenstone, granite, trap rock, silica sand, slate, nepheline syenite, greystone, crushed quartz, slag, and the like”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing shingle of Shiao to comprise the igneous rock base particle of Amsden for its protection against ultraviolet radiation.
Regarding claim 9, Shiao discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Amsden, similarly drawn to a solar-reflective roofing granule, wherein each of the base particles comprises at least one of igneous rock or carbonaceous rock (Pg. 2, [0027]: “The base granules may be any suitable material such as minerals typically used in roofing granules. Examples include igneous rocks, argillite, greenstone, granite, trap rock, silica sand, slate, nepheline syenite, greystone, crushed quartz, slag, and the like”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing shingle of Shiao to comprise the igneous rock base particle of Amsden for its protection against ultraviolet radiation.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiao (US Pub. 2012/0157583 A1) in view of Edwards (US Pub. 2023/0295928 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Shiao discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Edwards, similarly drawn to a roofing shingle comprising granules, wherein the plurality of coated granules covers at least 80% of a top surface of the roofing shingle (Fig. 3, the profile view indicates that at least 90% of the area is covered in granules).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing shingle of Shiao to comprise granule coverage Edwards, to adequately protect the shingle from the elements.
Regarding claim 5, Shiao as modified by Edwards discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Edwards, wherein the plurality of coated granules covers at least 90% of the top surface of the roofing shingle (See id).
Regarding claim 11, Shiao discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Edwards, similarly drawn to a roofing shingle comprising granules, wherein the plurality of coated granules covers at least 80% of a top surface of the roofing shingle (Fig. 3, the profile view indicates that at least 90% of the area is covered in granules).
Claim(s) 7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiao (US Pub. 2012/0157583 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Shiao discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the average L* value is less than 25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to designate a lower L* value of 25 for improved heat retention in cold climates, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, Shiao discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the average L* value is less than 25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to designate a lower L* value of 25 for improved heat retention in cold climates, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 14, 16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiao (US Pub. 2012/0157583 A1) in view of Lai (US Pub. 12,492,556 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Shiao discloses a system, comprising:
a first roofing shingle installed on the roof deck, wherein the first roofing shingle comprises:
a substrate; an asphalt-filled layer on a surface of the substrate (Pg. 7, [0068], lines 1-4: “The roofing granules of the present invention can be employed in the manufacture of roofing products, such as asphalt shingles and bituminous membranes, using conventional roofing production processes”);
and a plurality of coated granules on the asphalt-filled layer (Fig. 3, mineral particle 62), wherein each of the coated granules of the plurality of coated granules comprises:
a base particle, and a coating (Pg. 1, [0015], lines 1-4: “In one aspect, the present invention provides a process for producing roofing granules comprising providing base particles and a coating composition comprising an inorganic sol material and at least one organic colorant”) comprising:
metal silicate (Pg. 7, [0064], lines 14-18: “In the alternative, the base coating binder can be a conventional metal oxide silicate binder formed from an alkali metal silicate such a sodium silicate and a clay, such as kaolin clay, cured at an elevated temperature in excess of 200 degrees Celsius”), and a reflective pigment (Pg. 7, [0064], lines 3-8: “In this embodiment, roofing granule 30 includes a base particle 32 comprising a mineral particle 34 formed from stone dust having an exterior surface 36 coated with cured base coating composition 42 including a base coating binder 44, and at least one solar reflective pigment 46”), wherein the coated granules of the plurality of coated granules have:
an average L* value of less than 30 (Pg. 2, [0015], lines 36-37: Preferably, the organic colorant provides roofing granules having an L* of less than 30”), and a total solar reflectance of 20% to 40% (Pg. 8, see table 2).
However, Shiao fails to disclose as taught by Lai, similarly drawn to a roofing element, the roofing shingles disposed on a roof deck (Col. 2, lines 35-37: “Another aspect of the present disclosure provides an array of the roofing elements of the disclosure disposed on a roof deck”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing shingle of Shiao to be disposed on the roof deck of Lai as that is where roofing shingles are usually placed.
Regarding claim 16, Shiao as modified by Lai discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Shiao, discloses wherein each of the base particles has a total solar reflectance of at least 20% (Pg. 8, see table 2).
Regarding claim 19, Shiao as modified by Lai discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Shiao, wherein each of the base particles has a particle size of at most US sieve #6, and of at least US sieve #80 (Pg. 3, [0034], lines 1-10: “The base particle can be a suitably sized mineral particle such as described above, or in the alternative, the base particles can be a solid or hollow glass spheres. Solid and hollow glass spheres are available, for example, from Potters Industries Inc., P.O. Box 840, Valley Forge, Pa. 19482-0840, such as SPHERIGLASS® solid "A" glass spheres product grade 1922 having a mean size of 0.203 mm, product code 602578 having a mean size of 0.59 mm, BALLOTTINI impact beads product grade A with a size range of 600 to 850 micrometers (U.S. sieve size 20-30)”).
Regarding claim 20, Shiao as modified by Lai discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the average L* value is less than 25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to designate a lower L* value of 25 for improved heat retention in cold climates, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiao (US Pub. 2012/0157583 A1) in view of Lai (US Pub. 12,492,556 B2), and further in view of Amsden (US Pub. 2022/0049500 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Shiao as modified by Lai discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Amsden, similarly drawn to a solar-reflective roofing granule, wherein each of the base particles comprises at least one of igneous rock or carbonaceous rock (Pg. 2, [0027]: “The base granules may be any suitable material such as minerals typically used in roofing granules. Examples include igneous rocks, argillite, greenstone, granite, trap rock, silica sand, slate, nepheline syenite, greystone, crushed quartz, slag, and the like”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing shingle of Shiao in view of Lai to comprise the igneous rock base particle of Amsden for its protection against ultraviolet radiation.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiao (US Pub. 2012/0157583 A1) in view of Lai (US Pub. 12,492,556 B2), and further in view of Edwards (US Pub. 2023/0295928 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Shiao in view of Lai discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Edwards, similarly drawn to a roofing shingle comprising granules, wherein the plurality of coated granules covers at least 80% of a total surface area of a top surface of the first roofing shingle (Fig. 3, the profile view indicates that at least 90% of the area is covered in granules).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roofing shingle of Shiao to comprise granule coverage Edwards, to adequately protect the shingle from the elements.
Regarding claim 18, Shiao in view of Lai and Edwards discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Edwards, wherein the plurality of coated granules covers at least 90% of the total surface area of the top surface of the first roofing shingle (See id)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. 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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642