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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5/18/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,084,865 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-20 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 1 recites “a butt end of the shingle” in line 3 and then recites “a butt end of one of the plurality of tabs”. It is unclear if the butt end of the shingle and the butt end of the plurality of tabs are the same butt end. If so, antecedence should be reflected. If not, the claim terms should be clearly differentiated from each other eliminating ambiguity.
Claim 2 recites “a butt end of the one of the plurality of tabs”. Parent claim 1 previously introduces “a butt end of one of the plurality of tabs”. Antecedence should be reflected.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the at least one feature comprises the alignment feature”. “The at least one feature” lacks antecedent basis. Parent claim 4 introduces “an alignment feature”.
Claim 10 recites “the alignment feature” lacking antecedent basis. It is unclear what structure is being referenced. Is the claim intended to instead depend from claim 4?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodrigues et al., US 2005/0193673.
Regarding claim 1:
Rodrigues discloses a roofing shingle, comprising: a lower layer including a headlap and a plurality of tabs extending from the headlap; and an upper layer including at least one finger, wherein the roofing shingle has an exposure zone extending between a butt end of the shingle and the headlap of the lower layer wherein the at least one finger extends from the headlap to a butt end of one of the plurality of tabs, and wherein the at least one finger extends across the shingle a distance less than a width of the shingle;
Wherein each finger of the plurality of fingers are discrete and detached from each other (refer to the figure reproduced below, the fingers are detached from each other and only attached to a headlap portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
325
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Rodrigues discloses wherein each finger of the plurality of fingers extends from the headlap to a butt end of one of the plurality of tabs.
Regarding claim 3:
Rodrigues discloses wherein at least a portion of the lower layer comprises a first type of granule and wherein at least a portion of the upper layer comprises a second type of granule that differs from the first type of granule (para. 0012).
Regarding claims 4 and 8:
Rodriguez discloses further comprising: an alignment feature (17) disposed in the exposure zone of the roofing shingle, wherein the alignment feature is adapted to permit alignment of adjacent roofing shingles during installation on a roof; wherein the alignment feature extends into a hidden zone of the roofing shingle such that at least a portion of the alignment feature is covered in the installed state (refer to Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 5:
Rodrigues discloses wherein the alignment feature is at least one feature.
Regarding claim 7:
Rodrigues discloses wherein at least one finger of the plurality of fingers terminates in the headlap.
Regarding claim 9:
Rodrigues discloses wherein the roofing shingle defines an X-direction parallel with a width of the roofing shingle and a Y-direction parallel with a length of the roofing shingle, and wherein the alignment feature is adapted to align adjacent roofing shingles in at least one of the X- and Y- directions.
Regarding claim 10:
Rodrigues discloses wherein the alignment feature comprises a third type of granule, and wherein at least a portion of the upper layer comprises a second type of granule that differs from the third type of granule (refer to Fig. 1, there being 3 different types of granules, 22, 18 and 13 all have different types of granules).
Regarding claim 11:
Rodrigues discloses wherein a thickness of the alignment feature is no greater than a thickness of the upper layer (it is a cutout notch).
Regarding claim 19:
Rodrigues discloses wherein the at least one finger extends no greater than 90% of the width of the shingle (it is significantly less than 90%).
Regarding claim 20:
Rodrigues discloses wherein all of the fingers extend across the shingle a distance less than the width of the shingle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues et al., US 2005/0193673 in view of Eaton et al., US 4,468,903.
Regarding claim 6:
Rodrigues does not expressly disclose wherein the alignment feature comprises the at least one finger.
Eaton discloses a shingle wherein the alignment feature comprises at least one of the fingers.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to provide an alignment feature as suggested by Eaton on one of the disconnected fingers of Rodrigues, such that the alignment features of Rodrigues comprise at least one of the fingers in order to aid an installer in easily establishing the precise and proper amount of headlap and overlap between the panels during installation of each course or row (12th paragraph of Eaton).
Claims 12-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues et al., US 2005/0193673 in view of Kalkanoglu et al., US 2007/0011978.
Regarding claims 12 and 13:
Rodrigues does not expressly disclose an impact resistant material.
Kalkanoglu discloses an impact resistant material of scrim (29, para. 0027) coupled to a lower layer of a roofing shingle.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to provide a scrim impact resistant layer on the lower layer of the shingle of Rodrigues as suggested by Kalkanoglu in order to resist shingle failure (para. 0004 of Kalkanoglu).
Regarding claims 14, 17 and 18:
The impact resistant material of Kalkanoglu is also a reinforcement material of a substantially thinner dimension as compared to the lower layer (Fig. 4), wherein the reinforcement material is coupled to an exterior rear surface of the shingle/lower layer and extends at least substantially between lateral opposite edges of the shingle (refer to Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 15:
Rodrigues discloses a longitudinal fastening zone between edges of the shingle, intermediate an upper edge and the butt end of the shingle, and Kalkanoglu discloses wherein the reinforcement feature is at least partially lower than the fastening zone.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues et al., US 2005/0193673 in view of Bryson et al., US 2010/0196647.
Regarding claims 14 and 16:
Rodrigues does not expressly disclose a reinforcement material.
Bryson discloses a roofing shingle having a reinforcement material of a substantially thinner dimension as compared to the lower layer, wherein the reinforcement material is coupled to an exterior front surface of the shingle and extends at least substantially between lateral opposite edges of the shingle (refer to Figs. 1 and 3).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use a reinforcement as suggested by Bryson with the shingle of Rodrigues in order to resist shingle failure via cracking (background).
Regarding claim 15:
Rodrigues discloses a longitudinal fastening zone between edges of the shingle, intermediate an upper edge and the butt end of the shingle, and Bryson discloses wherein the reinforcement feature is at least partially in the fastening zone.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Rodrigues does not disclose a plurality of fingers that are discrete and detached from each other, the examiner has identified this feature in Rodrigues below.
PNG
media_image2.png
339
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights