DETAILED ACTION
This Office action follows the Restriction Requirement filed on 12/23/2025 and is responsive to applicant’s reply filed on 2/17/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Invention I, including claims 1-13, and Species P, embodied by Figs. 27-28 in the reply filed on 2/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/17/2026.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 4/29/2024 is being considered.
Drawings
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“A damages shingle” (as published [0110] line 4) is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “A damaged shingle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, “wherein the second sealant provides a more durable bond than the first sealant” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. The term “durable” is a relative term, and the metes and bounds are not clearly established to define what applicant considers “durable”. Durability of materials can be defined in many ways, and tested using various techniques or measurements, such as mechanical, physical, environmental, or functional tests. It is unclear what parameters are considered to distinguish one sealant being more durable than another sealant. Applicant’s specification does not define such parameters, and under the plain meaning, the limitation is beyond being a broad limitation, as it is unclear what is required of the respective sealants to meet the claim. See also claim 10.
Claim 11, “the entirety of the first area of the bottom surface” and “the entirety of the second area of the bottom surface” are indefinite because the limitations lack antecedent basis. Note that for each limitation, “an entirety” is not previously defined. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, for each limitation, “an entirety” or equivalent.
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 sealant 416 applied to at least a portion of the bottom surface of the body (Fig. 3B); and
a second sealant 413 applied to at least a portion of the bottom surface of the body (Fig. 3B).
Claim 2, Leitch further provides wherein the first sealant and second sealant 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 sealants 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 sealant provides a bond with faster curing than the second sealant, or with no curing time (the first sealant is a tape and the second sealant 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 sealant provides a more durable bond than the first sealant (under the basic properties of materials, the bond formed by the second adhesive including a bituminous based adhesive is understood to have a 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 sealant is applied and the portion of the bottom surface of the body to which the second sealant 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 sealant is applied or the portion of the bottom surface of the body to which the second sealant is applied (a release tape is applied to cover the portion of the bottom surface of the body to which the second sealant 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 sealant 416 applied to the first area of the bottom surface (416 is applied to the first area of 407; Fig. 3B);
the second area adapted to receive a second sealant during installation of the shingle patch (note that the claim is a product claim and the method of applying the sealant is not relevant to the patentability of the product, but that the second area is nonetheless suitable to receive a second sealant during installation of the shingle patch; further note that although Leitch teaches a preference of factory-applied sealants, the second area is nonetheless adapted to receive a second sealant during installation).
In the event that applicant that applicant disagrees that Leitch teaches the second area being adapted to receive a second sealant during installation of the shingle patch, it is well known in the art to apply a sealant 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 a sealant 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 sealant 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 sealant.
Claim 8, Leitch further teaches wherein both the first sealant and the second sealant 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 sealants 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 sealant provides a bond with faster curing than the second sealant, or provides a bond with no curing time (the first sealant is a tape and the second sealant 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 sealant provides a more durable bond than the first sealant (under the basic properties of materials, the bond formed by the second adhesive including a bituminous based adhesive is understood to have a more durable bond than the first adhesive defined by tape, as exceedingly broadly claimed; [0034]).
Claim 11, Leitch further teaches wherein the first sealant is applied to the entirety of the first area of the bottom surface and the second sealant 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 sealant and second sealant 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 sealant is applied or the portion of the second area of the bottom surface to which the second sealant is applied (a release tape is applied to cover the portion of the bottom surface of the body to which the second sealant is applied; [0041]; [0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mathieson (US 20170167143) teaches applying sealant to a lower surface of a shingle patch during installation (claims 1-3). See PTO-892 for a complete listing of references.
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