DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 3, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 19 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Claim Objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of Claims 3 and 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of Claims 4-5 and 19-22 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
The first argument is that Sieling’s folded panel is a folded single membrane structure shown in Figure 2A. However, the Examiner’s rejections of the independent claims contemplated Figures 1 and 1A of Sieling, not Figure 2A. One can see in Figures 1 and 1A, the claimed slot arrangement is indeed in the bottom layer of Sieling which then allow the shingle to be folded into the shape shown in Figure 2A. In Sieling, the bottom layer is the membrane and the top layer is the granulated surface. This interpretation meets the claims.
The final argument is that the secondary references do not remedy the deficiencies in Sieling. However, the Examiner has shown that Sieling does not have any deficiencies.
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) between the forward edge and the rear edge of 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 a hip or ridge of a 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 a hip or ridge (30, Fig 5) of a 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), the second slot (24 or 25) located between the forward edge and the rear edge of 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: 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]; and 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) 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 (24 or 25) located between the forward edge and the rear edge of the bottom layer (10), 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights