DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 6/4/2026. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 14-20 have been withdrawn. No claims have been cancelled. No new claims have been added.
Priority
The instant application is a CIP filed 4/29/2024. The elements and features recited in independent claims 1 and 7, as well as dependent claims 2-6 and 8-13 are drawn to the embodiment of Figs. 27-28 and the corresponding description of such figures in the specification. Such elements and features first appear in the instant application and as such were treated as having a priority date of 4/29/2024.
Drawings
Note that applicant’s remarks include a statement of replacement drawing sheets being filed (remarks filed 6/4/2026, page 1). However, replacement drawings have not been received in applicant’s response filed on 6/4/2026.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figs. 27-28, the poor line quality and shading renders part or all of the drawing illegible when reproduced. 37 CFR 1.84(l) (m) and (p)(1). 37 CFR 1.84(l) recites, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.” Applicant is requested to submit replacement drawing sheets with darker drawing lines.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leitch (US 20150089895).
Claim 1, Leitch provides a shingle patch for repairing a damaged portion of a damaged shingle (note that a damaged portion of a damage shingle is not positively recited and thus not required, and that the claim is drawn solely to the shingle patch), the shingle patch comprising:
a body (400; Fig. 3B) having top and bottom surfaces (405 and 407, respectively);
a first adhesive 416 applied to at least a portion of the bottom surface of the body (Fig. 3B); and
a second adhesive 413 applied to at least a portion of the bottom surface of the body (Fig. 3B),
wherein the first adhesive and the second adhesive are different (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 413 and 416 are separate, discrete objects, and that element 416 comprises tape and element 416 comprises conditional adhesive [0061]).
Claim 2, Leitch further provides wherein the first adhesive and second adhesive are selected to provide a bond between the shingle patch and the damaged shingle (note that the claim is a product claim and that “are selected” was treated broadly not to mean a process of selecting, but instead as intended use or functional language; it is understood that the first and second adhesives are suitable for use between the shingle patch and the damaged shingle, as exceedingly broadly claimed; [0061]).
Claim 3, Leitch further provides wherein the first adhesive provides a bond with faster curing than the second adhesive, or with no curing time (the first adhesive is a tape and the second adhesive can comprise several different materials including but not limited to a conditional adhesive that is understood to have a slower bonding time relative to the first adhesive defined by tape, as exceedingly broadly claimed; alternatively, the first adhesive provides a bond with no curing time, as the tape would be expected to have an instant bond; [0034]).
Claim 4, Leitch further provides wherein the second adhesive provides a stronger and more durable bond than the first adhesive (under the basic properties of materials, the bond formed by the second adhesive including a bituminous based adhesive is understood to have a stronger and more durable bond than the first adhesive defined by tape, as exceedingly broadly claimed; [0034]).
Claim 5, Leitch further provides wherein the portion of the bottom surface of the body to which the first adhesive is applied and the portion of the bottom surface of the body to which the second adhesive is applied do not overlap (Fig. 3B).
Claim 6, Leitch further provides wherein a release material is applied to cover the portion of the bottom surface of the body to which the first adhesive is applied or the portion of the bottom surface of the body to which the second adhesive is applied (a release tape is applied to cover the portion of the bottom surface of the body to which the second adhesive is applied; [0041]; [0045]).
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) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Leitch (US 20150089895) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leitch (US 20150089895) in view of Foster et al. (US 20020043044) (‘Foster’).
Claim 7, Leitch provides a shingle patch for repairing a damaged portion of a damaged shingle (note that a damaged portion of a damage shingle is not positively recited and thus not required, and that the claim is drawn solely to the shingle patch), the shingle patch comprising:
a body (400; Fig. 3B) having top and bottom surfaces (405, 407, respectively; Fig. 3B), the bottom surface having a first area and a second area (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as exceedingly broadly claimed, the bottom surface has first and second areas of 407; Fig. 3B);
a first adhesive 416 applied to the first area of the bottom surface (416 is applied to the first area of 407; Fig. 3B);
the second adhesive adapted to receive a second adhesive during installation of the shingle patch (note that the claim is a product claim and the method of applying the adhesive is not relevant to the patentability of the product, but that the second area is nonetheless suitable to receive a second adhesive during installation of the shingle patch; further note that although Leitch teaches a preference of factory-applied adhesives, the second area is nonetheless adapted to receive a second adhesive during installation),
wherein the first adhesive and the second adhesive are different (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 413 and 416 are separate, discrete objects, and that element 416 comprises tape and element 416 comprises conditional adhesive [0061]).
In the event that applicant that applicant disagrees that Leitch teaches the second area being adapted to receive a second adhesive during installation of the shingle patch, it is well known in the art to apply an adhesive to an area of a shingle patch during installation. Foster teaches a shingle patch for repairing a damaged portion of a damaged shingle (Fig. 1), the shingle patch comprising an area adapted to receive an adhesive during installation of the shingle patch [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shingle patch such that the second area is adapted to receive a second adhesive during installation of the shingle patch, with the reasonable expectation of success of obtaining a more effective, thorough bond specific to the actual roof conditions, leading to enhanced weather resistance, compared to a factory-applied adhesive.
Claim 8, Leitch further teaches wherein both the first adhesive and the second adhesive are selected to provide a bond between the shingle patch and the damaged shingle (note that the claim is a product claim and that “are selected” was treated broadly not to mean a process of selecting, but instead as intended use or functional language; it is understood that the first and second adhesives are suitable for use between the shingle patch and the damaged shingle, as exceedingly broadly claimed; [0061]).
Claim 9, Leitch further teaches wherein the first adhesive provides a bond with faster curing than the second adhesive, or provides a bond with no curing time (the first adhesive is a tape and the second adhesive can comprise several different materials including but not limited to a conditional adhesive that is understood to have a slower bonding time relative to the first adhesive defined by tape, as exceedingly broadly claimed; alternatively, the first adhesive provides a bond with no curing time, as the tape would be expected to have an instant bond; [0034]).
Claim 10, Leitch further teaches wherein the second adhesive provides a stronger and more durable bond than the first adhesive (under the basic properties of materials, the bond formed by the second adhesive including a bituminous based adhesive is understood to have a stronger and more durable bond than the first adhesive defined by tape, as exceedingly broadly claimed; [0034]).
Claim 11, Leitch further teaches wherein the first adhesive is applied to the entirety of the first area of the bottom surface and the second adhesive is applied to the entirety of the second area of the bottom surface (note that the first and second areas are arbitrary areas in size, and as such, the first adhesive and second adhesive were treated as being applied to an entirety of the first and second areas, respectively, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 3B).
Claim 12, Leitch further teaches wherein the first area of the bottom surface and the second area of the bottom surface do not overlap (Fig. 3B).
Claim 13, Leitch further teaches wherein a release material is applied to cover the portion of the first area of the bottom surface to which the first adhesive is applied or the portion of the second area of the bottom surface to which the second adhesive is applied (a release tape is applied to cover the portion of the bottom surface of the body to which the second adhesive is applied; [0041]; [0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Rejection of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leitch (US 20150089895).
Re claim 1, applicant argues that Leitch allegedly does not teach first and second adhesives that are different. This argument is not persuasive. Leitch’s first and second adhesives may be selected from a variety of materials, including “laminate adhesive, bituminous based adhesive, asphalt adhesive, a modified asphalt adhesive, or combinations thereof” [0034]. Each of these materials constitutes an adhesive. Leitch’s first adhesive 416 is in one instance referred to as “tape” (Specification page 3, Table 1). Leitch’s adhesives may be covered with a release tape prior to use [0036]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the scope of Leitch’s disclosure, it is understood that such tape includes adhesive. Leitch teaches the first and second adhesives being the same or “different” [0029]. Leitch teaches that the adhesives may be factory-applied to a shingle “so it may bind the shingle to which it is applied” [0061]. The fact that Leitch’s first and second adhesive may be conditional adhesives – “contact-activated adhesive materials” [0033] does not preclude the conditional adhesives from being adhesives. Since there are multiple possible interpretations of Leitch’s first and second adhesive/sealant materials being considered adhesives, as exceedingly broadly claimed, Leitch meets the claim.
Rejection of claim(s) 7-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Leitch (US 20150089895) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leitch (US 20150089895) in view of Foster et al. (US 20020043044) (‘Foster’).
Claims 7-13 stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Conclusion
Previously cited Mathieson (US 20170167143) is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mathieson teaches applying adhesive to a lower surface of a shingle patch during installation (claims 1-3).
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 JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights