DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 21-34 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they include shading and/or photographs. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications unless the photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. The use of shading may be used if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but NOT for cross sections. See MPEP § 608.02. In the instant case, legibility is reduced.
In addition, it appears at least Figure 32 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). It is noted that it is not readily apparent from the figures and the specification which figures are directed to prior art. Clarity thereof is requested.
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 § 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(s) 9-13 and 18-20 is/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.
Re claim 9, claim 9 recites, “the at least one continuous ridge” in line 1. Due to claim 9’s dependency on claim 4, this phrase lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. For the purposes of this examation, this claim will be interpreted as depending on claim 5.
Re claim 10, claim 10 recites, “the rear edge” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purposes of this examation, this claim will be interpreted as “the rear edge margin.”
Re claim 11, claim 11 recites, “the corner gutter guard member” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purposes of this examation, this claim will be interpreted as “the corner gutter guard.”
Re claim 18, claim 18 recites, “the gutter system” in the 2nd to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purposes of this examation, this claim will be interpreted as “a gutter system.”
Re claim 19, claim 19 recites, “the gutter system” in line 2 and “the roof board” in line the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purposes of this examation, this claim will be interpreted as “a gutter system” and “a roof board,” though the language regarding “the gutter system” need not be changed if claim 18 is amended per the above.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 20 is/are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) 1-2, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Brochu (US 2005/0279036).
Re claim 1, Brochu discloses a corner gutter guard (10) comprising:
a front profile (26, 40) configured to couple to a front edge (62) of a gutter (54) at an inner corner thereof ([0023]), the front profile (26, 40) having a left end (end of 26) and a right end (end of 40);
a screen portion (16, 28) extending rearward of (Fig. 3) the front profile (26, 40), the screen portion (16, 28) having a left end section (16) and a right end section (28), at least one of the left end section (16) and the right end section (28) extending proud of (Fig. 1, downward) the respective one of the left end (end of 26) and the right end (end of 40) of the front profile (26, 40).
Re claim 2, Brochu discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 1, wherein the left end section (16) extends proud of (Fig. 1, downward) the left end (end of 26) and the right end section (28) extends proud of (Fig. 1, downward) the right end (end of 40).
Re claim 10, Brochu discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 1, comprising a screen member (16, 28) forming the screen portion (16, 28), the screen member (16, 28) having a front edge margin (front edge of 16 and 28) one of (i) connected to (Fig. 2) and (ii) forming the front profile, the screen member (16, 28) having a rear edge margin (rear edge of 16 and 28) opposite the front edge margin (front edge of 16 and 28), the rear edge (rear edge of 16 and 28) including a left segment (rear of 16) and a right segment (rear of 28) extending at a right angle (Fig. 3) to the left segment (rear of 16).
Re claim 11, Brochu discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 10, wherein the rear edge margin (rear of 16 and 28) of the screen member (16 and 28) defines the rear end (rear end of 10) of the corner gutter guard member (10).
Re claim 12, Brochu discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 11, wherein the rear edge margin (rear of 16 and 28) of the screen member (16, 28) is configured to be selectively (i) tucked under a first row of shingles at a roof valley (the rear of 16 and 28 are capable of being tucked under a first row of shingles at a roof valley) and (ii) trimmed and fastened to angle strips below the first row of shingles (the rear of 16 and 28 are capable of being trimmed and fastened to angle strips below the first row of shingles).
Re claim 13, Brochu discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 11, wherein the rear edge margin (rear of 16 and 28) of the screen member (16, 28) is configured to be selectively (i) tucked under a first row of shingles at a roof valley (the rear of 16 and 28 are capable of being tucked under a first row of shingles at a roof valley) and (ii) trimmed and fastened to angle strips below the first row of shingles (the rear of 16 and 28 are capable of being trimmed and fastened to angle strips below the first row of shingles).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochu (US 2005/0279036) in view of Lowrie III (“Lowrie”) (US 2006/0265968).
Re claim 3, Brochu discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said at least one of the left end section and the right end section has a slit defining a front tab and a back tab.
However, Lowrie discloses wherein said at least one of the left end section (left end of 20) and the right end section has a slit (between elements 25) defining a front tab (25a) and a back tab (25b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corner gutter guard of Brochu wherein said at least one of the left end section and the right end section has a slit defining a front tab and a back tab as disclosed by Lowrie in order to increase flexibility of the screen portion providing a better fit to a gutter section.
Re claim 4, Brochu as modified discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 3, Lowrie discloses wherein each of the front tab (25a) and the back tab (25b) is configured to be selectively bent downward for reception in the gutter (25a/b are capable of being selectively bent downward for reception in the gutter).
Claim(s) 5-9, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochu (US 2005/0279036) in view of Miller JR et al (“Miller”) (US 2019/0218782).
Re claim 5, Brochu discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the screen portion comprises at least one continuous ridge extending from a left ridge end portion adjacent the left end section to a right ridge end portion adjacent the right end section.
However, Lowrie discloses wherein the screen portion (between 250 and 260) comprises at least one continuous ridge (214, 234) extending from a left ridge end portion (left end of 214 and 234) adjacent the left end section (left end of 201) to a right ridge end portion (right end of 214 and 234) adjacent the right end section (right end of 201).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corner gutter guard of Brochu wherein said at least one of the left end section and the right end section has a slit defining a front tab and a back tab as disclosed by Lowrie in order to enhance air flow between debris and the screen portion to aid in drying and removing debris ([0029]).
Re claim 6, Brochu as modified discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 5, wherein the continuous ridge (Lowrie: 214, 234) comprises a left segment (as modified to Brochu, and since 214/234 of Lowrie are continuous along the length, it follows that 214 and 234 would extend on each section of Brochu) configured to extend parallel to a left gutter section (left side of Fig. 1) connected to the inner corner ([0023]) and a right segment (as modified to Brochu, and since 214/234 of Lowrie are continuous along the length, it follows that 214 and 234 would extend on each section of Brochu) configured to extend parallel to a right gutter section (right side of Fig. 1) connected to the inner corner ([0023]).
Re claim 7, Brochu as modified discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 6, Lowrie discloses wherein the continuous ridge (214, 234) further comprises a central segment (between 214 and 234) connecting the left segment (per the above) to the right segment (per the above) and extending at a non-perpendicular angle (as each extends along the length) to the left and right segments (per the above).
Re claim 8, Brochu as modified discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 5, Lowrie discloses wherein the at least one continuous ridge (14, 34) comprises a front ridge (234) and a back ridge (214).
Re claim 9 in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 above, Brochu as modified discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 4, Lowrie discloses wherein the at least one continuous ridge (214, 234) has a front leg (218) and a back leg (216), wherein the back leg (216) is shorter than (Fig. 2B) the front leg (218) and/or is more inclined in relation to a main front-to-back plane of the screen portion than the front leg (as this is an “and/or” clause).
Re claim 14, Brochu discloses a corner gutter guard (10) comprising;
a screen (16, 28) configured to be disposed over (Fig. 1) an inner corner ([0023]) of a gutter (54), the screen (16, 28) including a left end section (16) configured to align with (Fig. 1) a left section (left section of 54) of the gutter (54) extending from the inner corner ([0023]) and a right end portion (28) configured to align (Fig. 1) with a right section (right section of 54) of the gutter (54) extending from the inner corner ([0023]),
but fails to disclose the screen comprising at least one continuous ridge extending from a left ridge end portion adjacent the left end section to a right ridge end portion adjacent the right end section.
However, Lowrie discloses the screen portion (between 250 and 260) comprising at least one continuous ridge (214, 234) extending from a left ridge end portion (left end of 214 and 234) adjacent the left end section (left end of 201) to a right ridge end portion (right end of 214 and 234) adjacent the right end section (right end of 201).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corner gutter guard of Brochu wherein said at least one of the left end section and the right end section has a slit defining a front tab and a back tab as disclosed by Lowrie in order to enhance air flow between debris and the screen portion to aid in drying and removing debris ([0029]).
Re claim 15, Brochu as modified discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 14, wherein the continuous ridge (Lowrie: 214, 234) comprises a left segment (as modified to Brochu, and since 214/234 of Lowrie are continuous along the length, it follows that 214 and 234 would extend on each section of Brochu) configured to extend parallel to a left gutter section (left side of Fig. 1) connected to the inner corner ([0023]) and a right segment (as modified to Brochu, and since 214/234 of Lowrie are continuous along the length, it follows that 214 and 234 would extend on each section of Brochu) configured to extend parallel to a right gutter section (right side of Fig. 1) connected to the inner corner ([0023]).
Re claim 16, Brochu as modified discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 15, Lowrie discloses wherein the continuous ridge (214, 234) further comprises a central segment (between 214 and 234) connecting the left segment (per the above) to the right segment (per the above) and extending at a non-perpendicular angle (as each extends along the length) to the left and right segments (per the above).
Re claim 17, Brochu as modified discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 14, Lowrie discloses wherein the at least one continuous ridge (14, 34) comprises a front ridge (234) and a back ridge (214) in generally parallel (Fig. 3) spaced apart (Fig .3) relation with the front ridge (234).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochu (US 2005/0279036) in view of Brochu (“Brochu 2”) (US 2005/0115160).
Re claim 13, Brochu discloses the corner gutter guard of claim 10, wherein the front profile (26, 40) comprises a left profile member (26) crimped onto (as this language is considered product by process) a left segment (front edge of 16) of the front edge margin (front edge of 16 and 28) of the screen member (16, 28) and a right profile member (40) crimped onto (as this language is considered product by process) a right segment (front edge of 28) of the front edge margin (front edge of 16 and 28) of the screen member (16, 28), wherein the left and right profile members (16, 28) being perpendicular (Fig. 3), but fails to disclose having mitered inner ends.
However, Brochu 2 discloses having mitered inner ends (see examiner comments).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corner gutter guard of Brochu with mitered inner ends as disclosed by Brochu 2 in order to extend the connection structures to the interior corner, providing a strong, more rigid connection.
It should further be noted that the language “crimped” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guilford (US 2009/0107053) in view of Bulla (US 10,640,982).
Re claim 18, Guilford discloses a corner gutter guard (10) comprising:
a corner gutter guard (20) configured to be installed on an inner corner (Fig. 1) of a gutter (12) for inhibiting infiltration of debris (Abstract) into the inner corner (Fig. 1) of the gutter (12) and permitting infiltration of water flowing down (Abstract) a roof valley (19a, 19b) into the inner corner (Fig. 1) of the gutter (12), the corner gutter guard (20) comprising a front profile (22) configured to couple to a front edge (front edge of the corner of 12) of the inner corner (Fig. 1) of the gutter (12) and a rear edge margin (rear edge of 20) including a left segment (20d) and a right segment (20b) perpendicular to (Fig. 3) the left segment (20d); and
an angle strip member (24) having an attachment section (24g) and a support section (24e, 24f), the attachment section (24g) configured to couple to a fascia board of the gutter system at the inner corner (24g is capable of coupling to a fascia board of the gutter system at the inner corner) and the support section (24e, 24f) configured to support (Fig. 3) the rear edge margin (rear edge of 20) of the corner gutter guard (20),
but fails to disclose a kit.
However, Bulla discloses a kit (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corner gutter guard of Guilford to be in a kit as disclosed by Bulla in order to allow for separation of parts for smaller shipping, reducing costs.
Re claim 18, Guilford as modified discloses the corner gutter guard kit as set forth in claim 18, wherein the corner gutter guard (20) is configured to be selectively installed on the inner corner (Fig. 1) of the gutter system (10) in either of (i) an under-shingle (18) installation configuration in which the rear edge margin is received between a shingle starter strip and a first row of shingles such that the rear edge margin is supported on a roof board above the fascia board (20 is capable of installation in which the rear edge margin is received between a shingle starter strip and a first row of shingles such that the rear edge margin is supported on a roof board above the fascia board) and (ii) an angle strip installation configuration (Fig. 6) in which the rear edge margin (rear of 20) is supported on the support section (24e, 24f) of the angle strip member (24) below (Fig. 6) the roof board (16).
Re claim 19, Guilford as modified discloses the corner gutter guard kit as set forth in claim 18, but fails to disclose wherein the kit comprises two angle strip members for every one corner gutter guard.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corner gutter guard of Guilford wherein the kit comprises two angle strip members for every one corner gutter guard in order to split 24 into 2 pieces, making 24 separable, in order to make 24 smaller for ease of shipping. It has been held that making separable is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
569
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635