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 1-26 are pending.
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 26 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.
Re claim 26, claim 26 recites, “the overlay sheet” in line 2 and “the underlay sheet” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the asphalt coated overlay sheet” and “the asphalt coated underlay sheet” and will be interpreted as such.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschenbeck et al (“Aschenbeck”) (US 2011/0072752) in view of Deib (US 8,147,955).
Re claim 1, Aschenbeck discloses a shingle (32) comprising:
at least one coated shingle sheet (14; [0029]; 32) defining a headlap portion (28) and a tab portion (30) each having opposed upper and lower surfaces (upper/lower surfaces of 28 and 30); and
a first adhesive (48) applied to (Fig. 2A) the at least one coated shingle sheet (Fig. 2A),
wherein the first adhesive (48) has an initial thickness t1 (Fig .33A),
but fails to disclose wherein the first adhesive has a compressed thickness t2 when subject to a compressive force in the range of about 5 psi to about 6 psi, wherein the first adhesive has a recovered thickness t3 when the compressive force is removed, wherein the compressed thickness t2 is less than 25% of the initial thickness t1, and wherein the recovered thickness t3 is at least 75% of the initial thickness t1.
However, Deib discloses wherein the first adhesive (Fig. 1, Col 3 lines 45-46 disclosing that Fig. 1 is a tape; see also Col 3 lines 43-44; the claims not limiting to solely an adhesive) has a compressed thickness t2 (Col 3 lines 62-63; Fig. 3) when subject to a compressive force in the range of about 5 psi to about 6 psi (as the language “when” is considered optional/conditional, see below), wherein the first adhesive (Fig. 1) has a recovered thickness t3 (Col 2 lines 36-39) when the compressive force is removed (as the language “when” is considered optional/conditional, see below), wherein the compressed thickness t2 (Claim 5) is less than 25% of the initial thickness t1 (Col 4 line 66-Col 5 line 1 disclosing compression to 10-60% an original thickness, thus including below 25%), and wherein the recovered thickness t3 is at least 75% of the initial thickness t1 (Col 4 lines 61-64 disclosing 15-80%, thus including at least 75%).
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 shingle of Aschenbeck wherein the first adhesive has a compressed thickness t2 when subject to a compressive force in the range of about 5 psi to about 6 psi, wherein the first adhesive has a recovered thickness t3 when the compressive force is removed, wherein the compressed thickness t2 is less than 25% of the initial thickness t1, and wherein the recovered thickness t3 is at least 75% of the initial thickness t1 as disclosed by Deib in order to seal between the elements (Col 1 line 54).
Additionally, the language “when” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Re claim 2, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 1, wherein the first adhesive (48) is applied as a first continuous line ([0035]) to the at least one coated shingle sheet (32).
Re claim 5, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 1, wherein the first adhesive (48) is applied to the lower surface (54) of the tab portion (30) of the at least one coated shingle sheet (32).
Re claim 6, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first adhesive is applied to the upper surface of the headlap portion of the at least one coated shingle sheet.
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 shingle of Aschenbeck wherein the first adhesive is applied to the upper surface of the headlap portion of the at least one coated shingle sheet in order to form/provide a primary seal location at the headlap portion, ensuring proper sealing of the headlap portion. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Re claim 8, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the initial thickness t1 of the first adhesive is in the range of 0.04 inches to 0.05 inches, wherein the compressed thickness t2 of the first adhesive is less than 0.01 inches, and wherein the recovered thickness t3 of the first adhesive is in the range of 0.03 inches to 0.0375 inches.
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 shingle of Aschenbeck to wherein the initial thickness t1 of the first adhesive is in the range of 0.04 inches to 0.05 inches, wherein the compressed thickness t2 of the first adhesive is less than 0.01 inches, and wherein the recovered thickness t3 of the first adhesive is in the range of 0.03 inches to 0.0375 inches in order to ensure sufficient adhesion and sealing for sealing between the elements. 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 25, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 1, wherein the at least one coated shingle sheet (14; [0029]; 32) comprises an asphalt coated overlay sheet (28/30) laminated to ([0033]) an asphalt coated underlay sheet (29, [0048]).
Re claim 26, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 25, wherein the upper surface (upper surface of 28) of the headlap portion (28) is defined entirely by the overlay sheet (28/30), and the lower surface (bottom of 30) of the tab portion (30) is defined entirely by the underlay sheet (29).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschenbeck et al (“Aschenbeck”) (US 2011/0072752) in view of Deib (US 8,147,955) and Hudson JR et al (“Hudson”) (US 6,199,338).
Re claim 3, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the first continuous line extends the entire width of the shingle.
However, Hudson discloses wherein the first continuous line (57) extends the entire width (of 55) of the shingle (55).
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 shingle of Aschenbeck wherein the first continuous line extends the entire width of the shingle as disclosed by Hudson in order to ensure proper adhesion across the entirety of the shingle, and to provide a full seal across the entirety of the shingle.
Claim(s) 4, 11-17, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschenbeck et al (“Aschenbeck”) (US 2011/0072752) in view of Deib (US 8,147,955) and Kandalgaonkar (US 2004/0206035).
Re claim 4, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the first adhesive is applied as a plurality of first discontinuous lines to the at least one coated shingle sheet.
However, Kandalgaonkar discloses wherein the first adhesive (20) is applied as a plurality of first discontinuous lines (20) to the at least one coated shingle sheet (10).
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 shingle of Aschenbeck wherein the first adhesive is applied as a plurality of first discontinuous lines to the at least one coated shingle sheet as disclosed by Kandalgaonkar in order to reduce adhesive used saving material costs.
Re claim 11, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a second adhesive applied to the at least one coated shingle sheet.
However, Kandalgaonkar discloses further comprising a second adhesive (22) applied to the at least one coated shingle sheet (10).
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 shingle of Aschenbeck with further comprising a second adhesive applied to the at least one coated shingle sheet as disclosed by Kandalgaonkar in order to increase adhesion between elements.
Re claim 12, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 11, Kandalgaonkar discloses wherein the second adhesive (22) is applied as a second continuous line (Fig. 2) to the at least one coated shingle sheet (10).
Re claim 13, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 11, Kandalgaonkar discloses wherein the second continuous line (22) extends the entire width of the shingle (10; see Fig. 2).
Re claim 14, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the second adhesive is applied as a plurality of second discontinuous lines to the at least one coated shingle sheet.
However, in an alternative adhesive embodiment, Kandalgaonkar discloses wherein the second adhesive (20) is applied as a plurality of first discontinuous lines (20) to the at least one coated shingle sheet (10).
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 shingle of Aschenbeck wherein the second adhesive is applied as a plurality of second discontinuous lines to the at least one coated shingle sheet as disclosed by the alternative adhesive embodiment of Kandalgaonkar in order to reduce adhesive used saving material costs.
Re claim 15, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the second adhesive is applied to the lower surface of the tab portion of the at least one coated shingle sheet.
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 shingle of Aschenbeck wherein the second adhesive is applied to the lower surface of the tab portion of the at least one coated shingle sheetin order to form/provide a primary seal location at the headlap portion, ensuring proper sealing of the headlap portion. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Re claim 16, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the second adhesive is applied to the upper surface of the headlap portion of the at least one coated shingle sheet.
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 shingle of Aschenbeck wherein the second adhesive is applied to the upper surface of the headlap portion of the at least one coated shingle sheet in order to form/provide a primary seal location at the headlap portion, ensuring proper sealing of the headlap portion. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Re claim 17, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 11, Kandalgaonkar discloses wherein the second adhesive (22) is a non-foamed adhesive ([0048]).
Re claim 21, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 11, Kandalgaonkar discloses wherein the first adhesive (20) and the second adhesive (22) are parallel to one another (Fig. 2) and spaced apart from one another (Fig. 2).
Re claim 22, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 11, Kandalgaonkar discloses wherein the first adhesive (20) and the second adhesive (22) are parallel to one another (Fig. 2) but fails to disclose abutting one another.
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 shingle of Aschenbeck such that the first and second adhesives abut each other in other to simplify installation by not requiring measuring spacings. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Re claim 23, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 11, Kandalgaonkar discloses wherein the first adhesive (20) and the second adhesive (22) are parallel to one another (Fig. 2) but fails to disclose at least partially overlapping one another.
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 shingle of Aschenbeck such that the first and second adhesives at least partially overlap each other in other to simplify installation by not requiring measuring spacings. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Re claim 24, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 11, Kandalgaonkar discloses wherein a plurality of segments (any portions of 20, as there is no delineations defining what divides a segment) of the first adhesive (20) and wherein a plurality of segments (any portions of 22, as there is no delineations defining what divides a segment) the second adhesive (22) are collinear (Fig. 2) and spaced apart from one another (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschenbeck et al (“Aschenbeck”) (US 2011/0072752) in view of Deib (US 8,147,955) and Edwards et al (“Edwards”) (US 2014/0115980).
Re claim 7, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first adhesive is a foamed adhesive.
However, Edwards discloses wherein the first adhesive (90) is a foamed adhesive ([0064]).
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 shingle of Aschenbeck wherein the first adhesive is a foamed adhesive as disclosed by Edwards in order to provide superior wind uplift resistance, waterproofing, and sealing, all well-known benefits of foamed adhesives.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschenbeck et al (“Aschenbeck”) (US 2011/0072752) in view of Deib (US 8,147,955) and Freshwater et al (“Freshwater”) (US 4,559,267).
Re claim 9, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first adhesive has a first activation temperature.
However, Freshwater discloses wherein the first adhesive (Col 2 lines 52-56) has a first activation temperature (Col 2 lines 52-56).
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 shingle of Aschenbeck wherein the first adhesive has a first activation temperature as disclosed by Freshwater in order to prevent premature activation during packaging and storage (Col 2 lines 52-56).
Re claim 10, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 1, Freshwater discloses wherein the first activation temperature is at least about 135° F (Col 2 lines 52-56 disclosing 140°-160° F, being at least 135° F).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschenbeck et al (“Aschenbeck”) (US 2011/0072752) in view of Deib (US 8,147,955), Kandalgaonkar (US 2004/0206035) and Freshwater et al (“Freshwater”) (US 4,559,267).
Re claim 18, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the second adhesive has a second activation temperature, and wherein the second activation temperature is lower than the first activation temperature.
However, Freshwater discloses wherein the second adhesive (Col 2 lines 52-56) has a second activation temperature (Col 2 lines 52-56).
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 shingle of Aschenbeck wherein the second adhesive has a second activation temperature as disclosed by Freshwater in order to prevent premature activation during packaging and storage (Col 2 lines 52-56).
In addition, 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 shingle of Aschenbeck wherein the second activation temperature is lower than the first activation temperature in order to begin the adhesion process at a lower activation temperature prior to full adhesion.
Re claim 19, Aschenbeck as modified discloses the shingle of claim 1, Freshwater discloses wherein the second activation temperature is at least about 20° F (Col 2 lines 52-56 disclosing 140°-160° F, being at least 20° F).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 20 is/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.
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
Prosecution Insights