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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Figure 7 in the reply filed on 11 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 9, the last line reads “aligned with the side edges of the top layer the bottom layer”. It seems as though “the bottom layer” shouldn’t be there. 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.
Claims 4-5 and 19-22 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 recites the limitation "the hip or ridge" and “the roof”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the hip or ridge” and “the roof". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "each of the side edges" on Lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because previously on Lines 15-16, it was only recited that the bottom layer had a side edge.
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)(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.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9-11, 15, 17-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 5,467,568 to Sieling.
Regarding claim 3, Sieling teaches in Figures 1 and 1A, a cap shingle [ridge and hip roofing panel (Column 1, Lines 4-5)], comprising: a top layer (7) [upper surface of granules (Column 2, Lines 31-32)] comprising: a forward edge, a rear edge, and side edges; an exposure portion (3); and a headlap portion (2); a bottom layer (10) [under surface (Column 2, Line 38)] positioned below the top layer (7), the bottom layer (10) comprising: a forward edge, a rear edge and side edges; a first slot (6) [notch (Column 2, Line 31)] formed in the bottom layer (10) and extending from the forward edge of the bottom layer (10) toward the rear edge of the bottom layer (10); and a second slot (24 or 25) formed in the bottom layer (10) and extending from one side edge of the bottom layer (10) toward the first slot (6); and an adhesive material (Column 2, Lines 38-39) applied between the top layer (7) and the bottom layer (10) to adhere [coated with granules (Column 2, Line 32)] the top layer (7) to the bottom layer (10).
Regarding claim 4, Sieling teaches in Figures 1 and 1A, at least one score line (13) at least partially extending through the bottom layer (10); wherein the at least one score line (13) is configured to define a fold line [see Figure 4] along which the cap shingle is folded as the cap shingle is positioned over the hip or ridge of the roof (30, Fig 5).
Regarding claim 5, Sieling teaches in Figures 1 and 1A, the score line (13) is formed along a center line of the cap shingle and beginning at one end of the first slot (6) and extending toward the rear edge of the bottom layer (10).
Regarding claim 7, Sieling teaches in Figures 1 and 1A, an alignment feature (13) disposed along a center line of the cap shingle and beginning at a rear edge of the bottom layer (10).
Regarding claim 9, Sieling teaches in Figures 1 and 1A, the adhesive material [for granules] is applied along at least a portion of the side edges of the bottom layer (10) extending from the forward edge of the bottom layer (10) to the second slot (24 or 25); wherein the second slot (24 or 25) is configured to facilitate bending [see Figure 2A] of the bottom layer (10) as the cap shingle is positioned over the hip or ridge (30, Fig 5) of the roof with the side edges of the bottom layer (10) remaining substantially aligned with the side edges of the top layer (7).
Regarding claim 10, Sieling teaches in Figures 1 and 1A, the second slot (24 or 25) is arranged perpendicular to the first slot (6) and comprises a slit (Column 3, Lines 21-27).
Regarding claim 11, Sieling teaches in Figure 5, a package [a bundle], comprising: a plurality of cap shingles [ridge and hip roofing panel (Column 1, Lines 4-5)] configured for installation over a hip or ridge (30) of a roof; Figures 1 and 1A showing each of the cap shingles comprises: a top layer (7) [upper surface of granules (Column 2, Lines 31-32)] comprising: a forward edge, a rear edge, and side edges; an exposure portion (3); and a headlap portion (2) configured to connect to an adjacent cap shingle installed along the hip or ridge of the roof [see Figure 5]; a bottom layer (10) [under surface (Column 2, Line 38)] positioned below the top layer (7), the bottom layer (10) comprising: a forward edge, a rear edge and side edges; a first slot (6) [notch (Column 2, Line 31)] formed in the bottom layer (10) and extending from the forward edge of the bottom layer (10) toward the rear edge of the bottom layer (10); and a second slot (24 or 25) formed in the bottom layer (10) and extending from one side edge of the bottom layer (10) toward the first slot (6); and an adhesive material (Column 2, Lines 38-39) positioned between the side edges of the top layer (7) and the side edges of the bottom layer (10) first slot (6) and the second slot (24 or 25) so as to adhere [coated with granules (Column 2, Line 32)] the top layer (7) to the bottom layer (10) along the side edges thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Sieling teaches in Figures 1 and 1A, the bottom layer (10) of each cap shingle further comprises a score line (9 and 13) extending along a center line of the cap shingle from an end of the first slot (6) toward the rear edge of the bottom layer (10); wherein the at least one score line (9 and 13) is configured to define a fold line [see Figure 4] along which the cap shingle is folded as the cap shingle is positioned over the hip or ridge of the roof (30, Fig 5).
Regarding claim 17, Sieling teaches in Figures 1 and 1A, the second slot (24 or 25) is arranged perpendicular to the first slot (6) and comprises a slit (Column 3, Lines 21-27).
Regarding claim 18, Sieling teaches in Figures 1 and 1A, the first slot (6) is formed through the bottom layer (10) such that a portion of the top layer (7) is exposed therethrough [the entire upper surface is coated with granules (Column 2, Line 37)].
Regarding claim 19, Sieling teaches in Figure 5, a roof structure (30), comprising a hip or ridge (Column 3, Line 44); a plurality of shingles [ridge and hip roofing panel (Column 1, Lines 4-5)] configured to be positioned along the hip or ridge, Figures 1 and 1A showing each cap shingle comprising: a top layer (7) [upper surface of granules (Column 2, Lines 31-32)] comprising: an exposure portion (3); and a headlap portion (2) configured to connect to an adjacent cap shingle installed along the hip or ridge of the roof [see Figure 5]; and a bottom layer (10) [under surface (Column 2, Line 38)] positioned below the top layer (7), the bottom layer (10) comprising: a first slot (6) [notch (Column 2, Line 31)] formed in the bottom layer (10) beginning at a forward edge of the bottom layer (10) and extending at least partially along the bottom layer (10); and a second slot (24 or 25) formed in the bottom layer (10), the second slot being arranged perpendicular to the first slot (6) and extending from one side edge of the bottom layer (10) toward the first slot (6); and an adhesive material (Column 2, Lines 38-39) applied between the top layer (7) and the bottom layer (10) to adhere [coated with granules (Column 2, Line 32)] the top layer (7) to the bottom layer (10); wherein the top layer (7) and the bottom layer (10) are adhered [coated with granules (Column 2, Line 32)] together along each of the side edges of the top layer (7) and the bottom layer (10).
Regarding claim 20, Sieling teaches in Figures 1 and 1A, the bottom layer (10) of each cap shingle further comprises a score line (9 and 13) extending along a center line of the cap shingle from an end of the first slot (6) toward a rear edge of the bottom layer (10); wherein the score line (9 and 13) is configured to define a fold line [see Figure 4] along which the cap shingle is folded as the cap shingle is positioned over the hip or ridge of the roof (30, Fig 5).
Regarding claim 22, Sieling teaches in Figures 1 and 1A, the adhesive material [for granules] is applied along at least a portion of the side edges of the bottom layer (10) extending from the forward edge of the bottom layer (10) to the second slot (24 or 25); wherein the second slot (24 or 25) is configured to facilitate bending [see Figure 2A] of the bottom layer (10) as the cap shingle is positioned over the hip or ridge of the roof (30, Fig 5) with the side edges of the bottom layer (10) remaining substantially aligned with the side edges of the top layer (7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 6, 8, 12-13, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 5,467,568 to Sieling in view of US Patent # 4,404,783 to Freiborg.
Regarding claim 6, Sieling teaches a cap shingle but does not teach an individual cap shingle connected to one or more cap singles of a multi-shingle sheet. However, Freiborg teaches in Figure 3, a cap shingle [roofing piece (Column 2, Line 1)] comprises an individual cap shingle (48) connected to one or more cap shingles (50 and 52) of a multi-shingle sheet (28); wherein the multi-shingle sheet (28) comprises a plurality of perforations (44 and 46) formed between each individual cap shingle (48, 50 and 52) of the multi-shingle sheet (28) and configured to facilitate separation of the individual cap shingles (Column 3, Lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hip and ridge single of Sieling with the multi purpose roof piece of Freiborg with a reasonable expectation of success because Freiborg discloses each 12 inch hip or ridge shingle can be cut from a 36 inch wide shingle which is the dimension of a standard shingle (Column 1, Lines 5-20) thus these shingles can be made by the machines that make standard shingles therefore reducing manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 8, Sieling teaches a cap shingle but does not teach a self-sealing material applied along a lower surface of the bottom layer. However, Freiborg teaches in Figure 4, a self-sealing material (54) (Column 2, Lines 57-58) applied along a lower surface of the bottom layer [Figure 4 shows it applied to the top surface but when the singles are attached to a roof, the adhesive would be applied to a lower surface of the next shingle attached], the self-sealing material (54) configured to adhere the bottom layer of the cap shingle to a headlap portion of an adjacent cap shingle [see Figure 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hip and ridge single of Sieling with the multi purpose roof piece of Freiborg with a reasonable expectation of success because Freiborg teaches the adhesive overlying shingles stick to the shingles beneath and prevent wind from raising up a front edge of the shingle and from rain from driving underneath (Column 2, Lines 61-69).
Regarding claims 12-13, Sieling teaches a package of cap shingles but does not teach the cap shingles connected to one or more additional cap singles of a multi-shingle sheet. However, Freiborg teaches in Figure 3, a cap shingle [roofing piece (Column 2, Line 1)] comprises a cap shingle (48) connected to one or more additional cap shingles (50 and 52) as part of a multi-shingle sheet (28); each multi-single sheet (28) comprises at least one perforation (44 and 46) formed at a juncture between the cap shingles (48, 50 and 52) of the multi-shingle sheet (28), the plurality of perforations (44 and 46) configured to enable separation of the multi-shingle sheet into individual cap shingles (Column 3, Lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hip and ridge single of Sieling with the multi purpose roof piece of Freiborg with a reasonable expectation of success because Freiborg discloses each 12 inch hip or ridge shingle can be cut from a 36 inch wide shingle which is the dimension of a standard shingle (Column 1, Lines 5-20) thus these shingles can be made by the machines that make standard shingles therefore reducing manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 16, Sieling teaches a package of cap shingles but does not teach each of the cap shingles further comprises a self-sealing material applied along a lower surface of the bottom layer. However, Freiborg teaches in Figure 4, a self-sealing material (54) (Column 2, Lines 57-58) applied along a lower surface of the bottom layer [Figure 4 shows it applied to the top surface but when the singles are attached to a roof, the adhesive would be applied to a lower surface of the next shingle attached], the self-sealing material (54) configured to adhere the bottom layer of the cap shingle to a headlap portion of an adjacent cap shingle [see Figure 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hip and ridge single of Sieling with the multi purpose roof piece of Freiborg with a reasonable expectation of success because Freiborg teaches the adhesive overlying shingles stick to the shingles beneath and prevent wind from raising up a front edge of the shingle and from rain from driving underneath (Column 2, Lines 61-69).
Regarding claim 21, Sieling teaches a roof structure comprising a plurality cap shingles but does not teach a self-sealing material applied along a lower surface of the bottom layer. However, Freiborg teaches in Figure 4, a self-sealing material (54) (Column 2, Lines 57-58) applied along a lower surface of the bottom layer [Figure 4 shows it applied to the top surface but when the singles are attached to a roof, the adhesive would be applied to a lower surface of the next shingle attached], the self-sealing material (54) configured to adhere the bottom layer of the cap shingle to a headlap portion of an adjacent cap shingle [see Figure 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hip and ridge single of Sieling with the multi purpose roof piece of Freiborg with a reasonable expectation of success because Freiborg teaches the adhesive overlying shingles stick to the shingles beneath and prevent wind from raising up a front edge of the shingle and from rain from driving underneath (Column 2, Lines 61-69).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 5,467,568 to Sieling in view of US Patent # 9,290,943 to Grubka.
Regarding claims 12-14, Seiling teaches a package of cap shingles but does not teach the cap shingles connected to one or more additional cap singles of a multi-shingle sheet. However, Grubka teaches in Figure 3, a plurality of cap shingles (34) are connected to one another as part of a multi-shingle sheet (26); each multi-shingle sheet (26) comprises a plurality of perforations (46) formed at a juncture between the cap shingles (34) of the multi-shingle sheet (26), the plurality of perforations (46) configured to enable separation (Column 5, Lines 7-10) of the multi-shingle sheet (26) into individual cap shingles (34); wherein each multi-shingle sheet (26) further comprises a slot (38) extending from a forward edge of a bottom layer along the juncture toward the plurality of perforations (46) and configured to facilitate separation (Column 4, Lines 59-61) of the multi-shingle sheet (26) into individual cap shingles (34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hip and ridge single of Sieling with the hip and ridge shingle of Grubka with a reasonable expectation of success because Grubka discloses the shingle blank has a with of about 36 inches (Column 4, Lines 22-23) which is the dimension of a standard shingle thus these shingles can be made by the machines that make standard shingles therefore reducing manufacturing costs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm EST.
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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635