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 1-13 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/25 has been entered.
Priority
At the outset, it is noted that the priority date of the claimed invention is that of US App. No. 15/049,372, filed on 2/22/16. Although ‘372 claims priority to US App. No. 62/119,009, filed 2/20/15, ‘009 does not support the claimed embodiment. The claimed embedment (claim 1) requires a horizontally oriented main body with first and second portions, the first portion angled downwardly therefrom, and the second portion terminal to the first portion and angled away from the roof side end of the main body. In other words, claim 1 requires features 110, 120 and 122 from Fig. 1. The closest disclosure in ‘009 is that of “Fig. A.” However, “Fig. A” does not disclose the claimed second portion. ‘372, however, discloses the claimed second portion. Thus, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is that of US 15/049,372, filed on 2/22/16
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 2-13 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 claims 2-13, each recites, “the cover system” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the non-roof cover system” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “a gutter lip” in the last line. However, a gutter lip is previously introduced. Thus, it is unclear if this is the same gutter lip or a different gutter lip than that which was already claimed. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the gutter lip” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 5, claim 5 recites, “the lateral member includes a bottom portion connected to the second portion.” However, claim 1 recites that the second portion is terminal to the first portion. It is unclear how the lateral member can simultaneously have a bottom portion connected to the second portion, yet include the second portion being terminal to the first portion. For the purposes of this examination, this language will be interpreted literally. However, clarification is requested.
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) 1-4, 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breyer (US 2016/0102459) in view of Gurr (US 2006/0288652).
Re claim 1, Breyer discloses a non-roof cover system (Fig. 2, Fig. 8, 10) for a gutter debris preclusion device (32, 34) having a heat element fitment (36), a roof side (left side of 38) and gutter lip side (right side of 38) and attached to a gutter (14), the gutter (50) have a gutter lip (below 64 in Fig. 8), comprising:
a horizontally oriented main body (114) having a roof side end (proximate 117; left side of 114) and a gutter lip side end (proximate 116);
a lateral member (117) integrally coupled to (as 38 is one piece) the roof side end (left side of 114) of the horizontally oriented main body (114) and having a joined first portion (117), wherein the first portion (117) is angled downwardly from (Fig. 8) the horizontally oriented main body (114);
a lip member (116 to 118) extended from (Fig. 8) the gutter lip side end (right side of 38) of the horizontally oriented main body (114), having a lip portion (118) angled downwardly (Fig. 8); and
a channel (below 114/right of 117) interior to the lateral member (117) and below the horizontally oriented main body (114) a bottom (bottom of the channel above) of the channel (below 114/right of 117) is bounded by a top (top of 32/34, at 108) of the gutter debris preclusion device (32/34),
wherein, the non-roof cover system (10) is coupled to (Fig. 2, Fig. 8) a top (top of 32/34) of the gutter debris preclusion device (32/34), the gutter lip side end (right side of 38) of the horizontally oriented main body (114) fits over a gutter lip (below 64 in Fig. 8) and the channel (below 114/right of 117) is proximal to (Fig. 8) the gutter lip (below 64 in Fig. 8),
but fails to disclose a second portion, the second portion is terminal to the first portion and angled away from the roof side end of the horizontally oriented main body.
However, Gurr discloses a second portion (see examiner comments), the second portion (see examiner comments) is terminal to (Fig. 2) the first portion (see examiner comments) and angled away from (being angled inwardly, modified onto 117 of Breyer) the roof side end (Breyer: proximate 117) of the horizontally oriented main body (see examiner comments).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover system of Breyer with a second portion, the second portion is terminal to the first portion and angled away from the roof side end of the horizontally oriented main body as disclosed by Gurr in order to provide additional surface area and points of contact for maintaining both the heat element and feature 92 of Breyer in place, providing a greater delineated channel.
Re claims 2-4, Breyer as modified discloses the cover system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the channel has a cross-sectional shape of a partial rectangle [claim 2], wherein the channel has a cross-sectional shape of a partial ellipse [claim 3], wherein the channel has a cross-sectional shape of a partial sinusoidal curve [claim 4].
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover system of Clark wherein the channel has a cross-sectional shape of a partial rectangle [claim 2], wherein the channel has a cross-sectional shape of a partial ellipse [claim 3], wherein the channel has a cross-sectional shape of a partial sinusoidal curve [claim 4] in order to fit or conform to heat element fitments of different shapes, such as those claimed in claims 2-4. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 7, Breyer as modified discloses the cover system of claim 1, further comprising a heat element (36) disposed within the channel (below 114/right of 117).
Re claim 8, Breyer as modified discloses the cover system of claim 7, wherein a longitudinal axis (longitudinal axis of 36) of the heat element (36) is parallel to (Fig. 8) the horizontally oriented main body (114).
Re claim 9, Breyer as modified discloses the cover system of claim 1, wherein the lip member extends past an exterior end of the gutter lip.
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 cover system of Breyer wherein the lip member extends past an exterior end of the gutter lip (such as by extending the length of 18) in order to provide a drip edge over the gutter lip or to protect 64 by extending farther past. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 10, Breyer as modified discloses the cover system of claim 1, wherein the gutter debris preclusion device (32/34) is attached to (Fig. 8) the gutter lip (below 64 in Fig. 8).
Re claim 11, Breyer as modified discloses the cover system of claim 10, wherein the lateral member (117) and the gutter debris preclusion device (32/34) form lateral boundaries (Fig. 2, Fig. 8) for the channel (below 114/right of 117) and the horizontally oriented main body (114) and the gutter debris preclusion device (32/34) form top and bottom boundaries, respectively (Fig. 8), for the channel (below 114/right of 117).
Re claim 12, Breyer as modified discloses the cover system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the second portion is shorter in length than the first portion.
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 cover system of Breyer wherein the second portion is shorter in length than the first portion, such as by reducing the size of the second portion, in order to reduce material used, saving in material costs. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 13, Breyer as modified discloses the cover system of claim 1, Gurr discloses wherein an interior angle (Fig. 2) formed by the first and second portions (see examiner comments) is greater than 90 degrees (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breyer (US 2016/0102459) in view of Gurr (US 2006/0288652) and Clark et al (“Clark”) (US 2011/0297662).
Re claim 5, Breyer as modified discloses the cover system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the lateral member includes a bottom portion connected to the second portion, wherein the bottom portion is oriented towards the gutter lip.
However, Clark discloses wherein the lateral member (116/118) includes a bottom portion (118) connected to the second portion (316), wherein the bottom portion (the wall below and connected to 316) is oriented towards (as it is angled downwardly) the gutter lip (such as the left lip of 50).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover system of Breyer wherein the lateral member includes a bottom portion connected to the second portion, wherein the bottom portion is oriented towards the gutter lip as disclosed by Clark in order to provide additional surface area and points of contact for maintaining both the heat element and feature 92 of Breyer in place, providing a greater delineated channel.
Re claim 6, Breyer as modified discloses the cover system of claim 5, wherein a terminal end (the corner bend connection of the wall below and connected to 316 and 316; this intersection is a terminal end of that wall because that wall ends and 316 begins, and the language does not define a terminal end as being unconnected to anything) of a gutter lip side of the bottom portion (the wall below and connected to 316) is oriented upwardly (Fig. 3, as that wall angles upwardly towards 316).
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
320
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to any of the combination of reference relied upon above.
Conclusion
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 on (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