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 .
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 17 and 19 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 17 recites the limitation “the apertures”, which is confusing. Claim 16 recites the inner retainers comprise an adhesive strip for affixing the inner retainer “and/or” the inner retainers comprise apertures…, so in the case of a claimed system in which the inner retainers comprise an adhesive strip for affixing the inner retainer and the inner retainers do not comprise apertures, claim 17 does not further limit a claim 16.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the liquid adhesive”, which is confusing. Claim 16 recites the inner retainers comprise an adhesive strip for affixing the inner retainer “and/or” the inner retainers comprise apertures for a nozzle of liquid adhesive…, so in the case of a claimed system in which the inner retainers comprise an adhesive strip for affixing the inner retainer and the inner retainers do not comprise apertures for a nozzle of liquid adhesive, claim 17 does not further limit a claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koyake (2002004521).
1. Koyake teaches a method for installing gutter mesh 40 to a gutter 10 of a roof, the gutter having an outer (left edge, fig. 4) edge, the method comprising:
locating one or more clips (60, 52, 70) on an outer edge 16b of the gutter, the one or more clips including a projection (the bolt head and upper shank) and a landing area 60c for receiving part of the gutter mesh, fig. 8,
placing the gutter mesh such that parts of the gutter mesh overlie the landing areas of the one or more clips (mesh 40 is shown over the clip as defined) and an inner part of the gutter mesh overlies part of the roof (as seen in fig. 4, the mesh is generally above the roof deck),
placing at least one retainer 51 over one or more of the one or more clips, and
applying an inner retainer 17 to fix an inner part of the gutter mesh to the roof.
2. Koyake teaches the method of claim 1, Koyake further teaching the projection of the clip passes through an aperture in the mesh when the gutter mesh is fitted to the clip such that parts of the gutter mesh overlie the landing areas, fig. 8.
3. Koyake teaches the method of claim 1, Koyake further teaching the one or more clips is attached to the gutter edge by being pushed onto the edge of the gutter because the clamping force applied is essentially a pushing-type force.
4. Koyake teaches the method of claim 1, Koyake further teaching the one or more clips is slid along the gutter to position the clip on the gutter because to at least some degree clip portion 51a slides on gutter portion 16a during installation, fig. 8.
7. Koyake teaches the method of claim 1, Koyake further teaching the at least one retainer is a body having an opening that fits over the projection of the clip and is retained on the projection, fig. 8.
12. Koyake teaches a system for installing gutter mesh to a gutter of a roof, the gutter having an outer edge, the system comprising a plurality of clips (60, 52, 70) for fitting to an outer edge of the gutter, the clips including a projection (the bolt head and upper shank) and a landing area 60c for receiving part of the gutter mesh, fig. 8, a plurality of retainers 51 for positioning over the clip, and one or more inner retainers 17 to fix an inner part of the gutter mesh to the roof.
20. Koyake teaches a system for affixing an outer edge of gutter mesh to a gutter of a roof, the gutter having an outer edge, the system comprising a plurality of clips (60, 52, 70) for fitting to an outer edge of the gutter, the clips including a projection (the bolt head and upper shank) and a landing area 60c for receiving part of the gutter mesh, and a plurality of retainers 51 for positioning over at least part of the clip.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9, 16-17, and 19 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyake in view of Lenney (9,021,747).
9. Koyake does not expressly teach the inner retainer comprises an adhesive tape on an inner region and the adhesive tape affixes the inner region of the inner retainer to the roof. Lenney teaches an inner retainer 140 comprises an adhesive on an inner region, col. 5, lines 65-67, and the adhesive affixes the inner region of the inner retainer to the roof because the adhesive affixes the inner region of the inner retainer, along with the rest of the inner retainer, to the roof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the inner retainer to comprise an adhesive tape on an inner region and the adhesive tape affixes the inner region of the inner retainer to the roof to firmly secure the mesh to the inner retainer inner region. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the adhesive to be tape for ease of application.
16-17, and 19. Koyake does not expressly teach the one or more inner retainers comprise an adhesive strip for affixing the inner retainer to the roof. Lenney teaches one or more inner retainers 140 comprise an adhesive strip, col. 5, lines 65-67, for affixing the inner retainer to a roof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the one or more inner retainers to comprise an adhesive strip for affixing the inner retainer to the roof to firmly secure the mesh to the inner retainer inner region.
Claim 14 - is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyake in view of Simmons (3,297,285).
14. Koyake does not teach the landing area comprises one or more barbs that engage with openings on the gutter mesh. Simmons teaches a landing area comprises one or more barbs 44 that engage with openings on a gutter mesh 19. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the landing area to comprise one or more barbs that engage with openings on the gutter mesh for strength.
Claim 18 - is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyake in view of Wade (5,729,931).
18. Koyake does not teach the inner retainer comprises a plurality of tooth shaped profiles configured to engage with troughs of a corrugated roof. Wade teaches an inner retainer comprises a plurality of tooth shaped profiles 16 configured to engage with troughs of a corrugated roof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the inner retainer to comprise a plurality of tooth shaped profiles configured to engage with troughs of a corrugated roof to be able to use the system with a corrugated roof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 5 is allowed because the Koyake retainer is a clip, not a strip. Claim 8 is allowed because the Koyake in view of Lenney adhesive tape is not applied to the inner edge of the gutter “mesh”. Claim 10 is allowed because Koyak does not teach a nozzle of a liquid adhesive source is fitted in an aperture on an outer region of the inner retainer. Claim 13 is allowed because Koyak does not teach the claimed clip legs. Claim 15 is allowed because it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the Koyake bolt with one or more teeth or serrations for engagement with one or more teeth or serrations on the retainers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633