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 1-20 are pending.
Claims 4, 8-12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are examined.
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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, and Species I, Figures 1-6, in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4, 8-12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration for defining non-elected inventions or embodiments.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lowe (U.S. Patent 3,804,066).
Regarding claim 1, Lowe discloses a ridge end cap or a ridge bock end tile for covering an end of a ridge tile (see figure 1, where element #15, in combination with element #19, can be considered to form a ridge end cap as broadly defined), comprising:
a cavity (the cavity formed between elements #16, #22, and #21 and the angled surfaces thereabove); and
an opening (#17) providing access from outside the ridge end cap or ridge block end tile to the cavity (see figure 1);
wherein the cavity provides a habitat for a mammal or bird (see col. 1, ll.48-51).
Regarding claim 3, Lowe discloses 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 a building surface in use (see figure 1, where the opening #17 is provided in an outer surface #16 which engages element #19 of the end cap and thus not a building surface #26/#24 of the structure during use).
Regarding claim 5, Lowe discloses the opening is substantially circular (see figure 1) or substantially slot-shaped.
Regarding claim 6, Lowe discloses the ridge end cap or ridge block end tile comprises a landing projection (#19b).
Regarding claim 7, Lowe discloses the landing projection is positioned adjacent to the opening (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Lowe discloses the ridge end cap or ridge block end tile is made from a polymer (see col. 2, ll. 65-68).
Regarding claim 14, Lowe discloses the ridge end cap comprises a back plate (#21) and a cover (#19) fixable to the back plate (see figure 1, where col. 2, ll. 10-12 disclose the back plate is permanently affixed to the back plate).
Regarding claim 17, Lowe discloses the cavity comprises a lining material (raised surface #22 can be considered a lining material that lines the bottom surface #19 of the cavity).
Regarding claim 18, Lowe discloses 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 (such a cavity between the left wall #16, back wall #21, and cover plate #19 can only be accessed from the left opening #17 and not any other opening of the assembly).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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, 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); and
an opening (the circular opening as depicted in figure 3) providing access from outside the ridge end cap or ridge block end tile to the cavity (see figure 4);
wherein the cavity provides a habitat for a mammal or bird (see figure 4).
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 a 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 Lowe in view of Nelson (U.S. Patent 11,363,802).
Regarding claim 2, Lowe discloses 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 Lowe 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) 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).
Conclusion
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