DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/649,189. Receipt of the Response to the Election/Restriction requirement filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending.
Claims 11 are cancelled.
Claims 4, 8-10, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 21 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 3, 5-7, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Horton (Horton, Robin Plaskoff, Birdhouse Roof Tiles, Urban Gardens Web (Jan. 6, 2013), obtained from https://www.urbangardensweb.com/2013/01/06/birdhouse-roof-tiles/) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Horton in view of Aragon (U.S. Patent 4,226,070).
Regarding claim 1, Horton discloses a ridge end cap or a ridge block end tile for covering an end of a ridge tile (see figures 3 and 4, where the roof tile can be considered to form a ridge block end tile that is configured to cover an end of a ridge tile, where such a covering and ridge tile are not positively defined), comprising:
a cavity (the interior cavity which is completely enclosed except for the opening into the cavity as depicted in figures 3 and 4) for providing a habitat for a mammal or bird (see figure 4); and
an opening (the circular opening as depicted in figure 3) for providing access for the mammal or the bird from outside the ridge end cap or ridge block end tile to the cavity (see figure 4);
a front face (the right vertical face with the opening provided therein) and a back face (the bottom, angled surface of the basket is considered the back face of the assembly), wherein the back face is configured to abut a building surface in use (see figure 4); and
a top surface that extends beyond the back face in a backwards direction for covering the end of the ridge tile (the top surface can be considered the top left surface projection upwardly and to the left of the cavity in figure 4, where such a top surface is to extend upwardly past the back face in the backwards direction so as to allow for coupling with a next higher up tile).
The roof tile of Horton is of a size and shape which allows it to cover and attach to adjacently shaped roof tiles, such as a ridge tile #2 as similarly structure in figures 1 and 5 of Aragon, where such a ridge tile and positioning is not positively defined. However, for compact prosecution purposes and if the Examiner is considered to over broadly disclose Horton as comprising of a ridge block end tile as defined, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Aragon, that such ridge tiles #2 can be constructed with a partial cylindrical section #19 to form the ridge at the top of a roof and arcuate sections #5 and flat sections #6 to imitate Spanish tile to cover the angled sides of the roof, where such ridge tiles #2 are configured to cover adjacent ridge tiles and extend to the end of the ridge. See figures 1 and 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the shape of the roof tile of Horton so as to be a ridge block end tile that is configured to cover an end of a ridge tile, such as depicted in figure 5 of Aragon, in order to construct roofs of different architectural features yet still allow birds and other mammals to nest safely within the roof structure.
Regarding claim 3, Horton discloses, or in the alternative in view of Aragon render obvious, the opening is positioned on an outer surface of the ridge end cap or ridge block end tile, wherein the outer surface is not abutting the building surface in use (see figures 3 and 4 of Horton, where the opening is provided in an outer, vertical surface of the roof tile and not the curved surface which is to directly attach to the battens of the building structure).
Regarding claim 5, Horton discloses, or in the alternative in view of Aragon render obvious, the opening is substantially circular (see figure 3 of Horton) or substantially slot-shaped.
Regarding claim 6, Horton discloses, or in the alternative in view of Aragon render obvious, the ridge end cap or ridge block end tile comprises a landing projection (see figure 3 of Horton).
Regarding claim 7 Horton discloses, or in the alternative in view of Aragon render obvious, the landing projection is positioned adjacent to the opening (see figure 3 of Horton).
Regarding claim 14, Horton discloses, or in the alternative in view of Aragon render obvious, the ridge end cap comprises a back plate (the left, rear vertical wall of the cavity of figure 4 of Horton) and a cover (the basket at the bottom of the end cap of figure 4 of Horton) fixable to the back plate (see figure 4 of Horton).
Regarding claim 17, Horton discloses, or in the alternative in view of Aragon render obvious, the cavity comprises a lining material (the basket at the bottom of the cavity of figure 4 of Horton or the nest material of figure 4 of Horton can be considered the lining material as broadly defined).
Regarding claim 18, Horton discloses, or in the alternative in view of Aragon render obvious, the opening provides the only access for the mammal or bird from outside the ridge end cap or ridge block end tile to the cavity (see figures 3 and 4 of Horton, where the basket prevents access from the bottom portion of the tile).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton in view of Nelson, or in the alternative in view of Aragon and Nelson.
Regarding claim 2, Horton discloses, or in the alternative in view of Aragon render obvious, the claimed invention except for the cavity is at least about 16 cm3 in volume. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Nelson, that the cavities formed in birdhouse boxes are fashioned in a variety of sizes, volumes, and shapes in order to suit the desired bird species which is to nest therein. See col. 3, ll. 24-26. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the cavity of Horton to be at least 16 cm3 in volume in order to house a specific bird species type, as taught in Nelson, and also since where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton in view of Aragon.
Regarding claim 13, Horton discloses the ridge tile is formed from ceramic and not a polymer, as defined. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Aragon, that such ridge tiles #2 of a roof structure can be constructed from a polymer material yet still comprise of a Spanish tile shape. See col. 3, ll. 10-16. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the ridge tile of Horton to comprise of a polymer, as taught in Aragon, in order to construct a lightweight yet strong roofing system and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton in view of Toms (GB 2353050), or in the alternative in view of Aragon and Nelson.
Regarding claim 21, Horton discloses, or in the alternative in view of Aragon render obvious, the claimed invention except for one or more fastening holes are formed in the front face. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Toms, that such hollow cavities #2 used to allow a bird to form a nest therein and travel into using an opening #6 can comprise of holes #8 on a front face #4 thereof in order to provide ventilation to the cavity. See figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the front face of the assembly of Horton to comprise of one or more holes, as taught in Toms, in order to provide ventilation to the assembly. Applicant does not further define the structure of such holes within claim 21 other than that they are “fastening holes.” The holes of Horton in view of Toms comprise of openings extending through the front face of the assembly and are configured to fit an appropriately sized fastener therein and thus meet such limitations as broadly defined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Horton discloses a birdhouse roof tile that replaces a standard ceramic roof tile and thus not a ridge end cap or ridge block end tile, Applicant does not further define the shape of such a ridge block end tile and such a positioning at a ridge is not positively defined within the claim. Such a tile of Horton can be attached to a ridge tile, or at the end of a ridge of the roof and is block shaped, due to its rectangular shape, and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined.
The Examiner also provided the Aragon reference to further show that such Spanish tiles can be designed and structured so as to positioned where needed on the roof, including the ridge and thus it would have also been obvious to have constructed the tile of Horton to form a ridge block end tile, as depicted in figure 5 of Aragon, in order to properly form the roof and provide the birdhouse at an appropriate location. Applicant argues that “there is no motivation to combine Horton with Aragon,” the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Aragon teaches that it is highly well known in the art to form Spanish or Mission tile roofing systems with tiles, where the tiles can comprise of shapes #5 to form the regular courses of tiles, shapes #3 to form hip caps, or shapes #2 to form ridge row caps and thus form a ridge of the system while also covering the regular courses of tiles #5. See figure 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the tile of Horton to be a ridge block end tile, as depicted in figure 5 of Aragon, in order to properly position the birdhouses throughout the roof assembly in a manner to protect the birds from territorial issues and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Applicant does not provide any further structure or function of such a ridge block end tile and the birdhouse tile of Horton in view of Aragon would still be capable of replacing a standard ridge block end tile with one that includes a birdhouse as is wanted by Horton. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Horton does not meet the newly added limitations requiring front and back faces as defined, Horton has been interpreted, as explained above, to include front and back surfaces and thus is considered to meet such limitations as broadly defined.
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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights