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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “roofing plate has no vertices” (see claim 15; drawings show opening 21 defined by surfaces meeting at an angle forming a vertex) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 13 is 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.
Claims 13 recites that the plate is rated for VSH under “Factory Mutual” standards. The recitation standards renders the claim as indefinite as the standards/regulations/code may change with time and thus the scope of the claim may vary.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102011076967 to Baudy (“Baudy”).
Regarding claim 1, Baudy in Fig. 4 discloses a roofing plate 300 comprising: a solid body 320 defining a fastener opening 380, 390 from a top surface to a bottom surface, wherein the solid body has rounded edges.
Regarding claim 2, Baudy discloses that the fastener opening comprises a main section 380 and a counterbore section 390 having a greater diameter than the main section.
Regarding claim 3, Baudy discloses that the top of the counterbore section 390 has a rounded upper periphery (see Fig. 4; opening into 390 has rounded upper periphery).
Regarding claim 4, Baudy discloses that the bottom of the counterbore section 390 has a rounded inner periphery (rounded at transition 398).
Regarding claim 5, Baudy discloses that the plate is formed from a polymer material (see English translation; pg. 4, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Baudy discloses that the plate 320 has a rounded outer peripheral edge 325.
Regarding claim 11, Baudy discloses that the bottom surface of the plate includes a plurality of downwardly extending teeth 340.
Regarding claim 14, Baudy discloses that the counterbore section has a rounded bottom inner edge (rounded at transition 398).
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2023/0279662 to Young et al. (“Young”).
Regarding claim 1, Young (see embodiment of Fig. 4) discloses a roofing plate 12 comprising: a solid body 12 defining a fastener opening 18 from a top surface to a bottom surface, wherein the solid body 12 has rounded edges (rounded at 14 and side edge forming opening 18A).
Regarding claim 12,Young (see embodiment of Fig. 4) discloses that the bottom surface 16 of the plate does not include any downwardly extending teeth.
Regarding claim 13, Young discloses that the plate is rated for Very Severe Hail (VSH) under Factory Mutual standards (par 0043).
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) 7-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudy.
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 10, Baudy does not expressly disclose that an IBS area defined as an area of the roofing plate that contacts a 2-inch diameter coaxial sphere (impact surface) is above 0.108 in2, or within an approximate range of 0.100 in2 to 0.400 in2 or 0.040 inches to 0.150 inches. As shown in Fig. 4, a surface from plate 320 transitioning into counterbore 390 is radiused resulting in more surface area for contact. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, increasing or reducing an opening for counterbore 390 such that an area that would contact a 2-inch diameter sphere is above 0.108 or within an approximate range of 0.100 in2 to 0.400 in2 or 0.040 inches to 0.150 inch squared would allow for use of a larger diameter fastener.
Regarding claim 8, Baudy discloses that the impact surface is radiused (see Fig. 4, a surface from plate 320 transitioning into counterbore 390 is radiused) but does not expressly disclose that a radius of curvature at the impact surface is greater than 0.051 inches.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the structure of Baudy to have a radius of curvature greater than 0.051 inches since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the components. 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).
Regarding claim 20, Baudy in Fig. 4 discloses a roofing plate comprising: a polymer (see English translation; pg. 4, last paragraph) body defining a fastener opening 380, 390 from a top surface to a bottom surface and having an upper counterbore section 390 with a diameter greater than a diameter of a lower primary bore 380 section, wherein the solid body defines an outer periphery with rounded edges, the counterbore section has a top with a rounded upper periphery (see Fig. 4; opening into 390 has rounded upper periphery), the counterbore section has a bottom inner edge that is rounded (rounded at transition 398), but does not expressly disclose an IBS area defined as an area of the roofing plate that contacts a 2-inch diameter coaxial sphere (impact surface) is within an approximate range of 0.100 in2 to 0.400 in2.
As shown in Fig. 4, a surface from plate 320 transitioning into counterbore 390 is radiused resulting in more surface area for contact. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, increasing or reducing an opening for counterbore 390 such that an area that would contact a 2-inch diameter sphere is within an approximate range of 0.100 in2 to 0.400 in2 would allow for use of various sized diameter fastener.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudy in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,726,164 to Reinwall et al. (“Reinwall”). All references are made with respect to Baudy unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 15, Baudy discloses a roofing assembly (Fig. 3), comprising: a roofing substructure 220; a flat roofing element 210 above the roofing substructure; a roofing plate 300 (the embodiment of Fig. 4 can be used instead of plate 100 shown in Fig. 3) above the roofing element; and a fastener 230 extending through a bore in the roofing plate, through the roofing element, and embedded into at least a portion of the roofing substructure to fix the roofing plate in place, wherein the roofing plate has no vertices. Baudy does not disclose a fluid impermeable membrane above the roofing plate.
Reinwall discloses a roofing assembly comprising a fluid impermeable membrane (Reinwall 11b) above a roofing plate (Reinwall 25) to protect the plate and fastener from moisture.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the roofing assembly of Baudy to have a fluid impermeable membrane above the roofing plate as taught in Reinwall with a reasonable expectation of success because the membrane would predictably protect the plate and fastener from moisture.
Regarding claim 16, Baudy modified by Reinwall discloses an underlying membrane 215 between the roofing plate 300 and the roofing element 210.
Regarding claim 17, Baudy modified by Reinwall discloses that the fastener bore includes a primary bore section 380 and a counterbore section 390 having a greater diameter than the primary bore section, and the counterbore section has a rounded upper peripheral edge.
Regarding claim 18, Baudy modified by Reinwall discloses that the counterbore section 390 has a rounded bottom inner edge.
Regarding claim 19, Baudy modified by Reinwall does not disclose that an IBS area defined as an area of the roofing plate that contacts a 2-inch diameter coaxial sphere is above 0.108 in2. As shown in Fig. 4, a surface from plate 320 transitioning into counterbore 390 is radiused resulting in more surface area for contact. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, increasing or reducing an opening for counterbore 390 such that an area that would contact a 2-inch diameter sphere is above 0.108 would allow for use of a larger diameter fastener.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633