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 1-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 32. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,118,354 in view of Jenkins et al (“Jenkins”) (US 2017/0284100).
Re claim 21 of the pending application and claim 1 of ‘354, each discloses a roofing product, an upper section, an exposure section, a top surface, a bottom surface, a plurality of zones, a first zone with a first algae-resistance intensity (as a result of claim 1 including a first concentration of algae-resistant granules), a second zone with a second algae-resistance intensity (as a result of claim 1 including a second concentration of algae-resistant granules),
but ‘354 fails to disclose the first algae-resistance intensity is different than the second algae-resistance intensity.
However, Jenkins discloses the first algae-resistance intensity (at one of 120, 112 or 108) ([0067]) is different than ([0067]; as a result of the zones having varying colors, one will have a higher resistance than another) the second algae-resistance intensity (at another of 120, 112 or 108).
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 roofing product of ‘354 with the first algae-resistance intensity is different than the third algae-resistance intensity as disclosed by Jenkins in order to match colors to other parts of the building, or to help control insulation for homes during colder months, or to better deflect sunlight.
Re claim 22 of the pending application and claim 2 of ‘354, each is identical.
Re claim 23 of the pending application and claim 1 of ‘354, each discloses first concentrations (collections) of algaecidal roofing granules.
Re claim 27 of the pending application and claim 5 of ‘354, each discloses wherein the second concentration of the algae-resistant roofing granules is in a range of 1% to 20%.
Re claim 30 of the pending application and claim 7 of ‘354, each discloses wherein the algae-resistant roofing granules in the roofing product have algaecide concentrations in a range from 0.02% by weight to 50% by weight.
Re claim 32 of the pending application and claim 8 of ‘354, each discloses wherein the first zone includes a first group of the algae-resistant granules that have an algaecide time-release characteristic that is different from an algaecide time-release characteristic of any of the algae-resistant roofing granules of the second collection.
Re claim 38 of the pending application and claim 13 of ‘354, each discloses wherein the first zone is disposed at an upper edge of the exposed section of the roofing product or at a lower edge of the exposed section of the roofing product.
Re claim 39 of the pending application and claim 13 of ‘354, each discloses wherein the second zone is disposed at a lower edge of the exposed section of the roofing product or at an upper edge of the exposed section of the roofing product.
Re claim 40 of the pending application and claim 15 of ‘354, each discloses a method of manufacturing a roofing product according to claim 1 including, providing a substrate with, a top surface, a bottom surface, a plurality of zones, a first zone with a first algae-resistance intensity (as a result of claim 1 include a first concentration of algae-resistant granules), a second zone with a second algae-resistance intensity (as a result of claim 1 include a second concentration of algae-resistant granules),
but ‘354 fails to disclose a first algae-resistance intensity and a second algae-resistance intensity.
However, Jenkins discloses the first algae-resistance intensity (at one of 120, 112 or 108; [0067]; as a result of the zones having varying colors, one will have a higher resistance than another) and a second algae-resistance intensity (at another of 120, 112 or 108).
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 roofing product of ‘354 a first algae-resistance intensity and a second algae-resistance intensity as disclosed by Jenkins in order to match colors to other parts of the building, or to help control insulation for homes during colder months, or to better deflect sunlight.
Claims 24-26, 28-29, 31, 33-37 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim(s) 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 3 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,713,579 in view of Jenkins et al (“Jenkins”) (US 2017/0284100).
Re claim 21 of the pending application and claims 1, 3, 6 and 19 of ‘579, each discloses a roofing product, an upper section, an exposure section, a top surface, a bottom surface, a plurality of zones, a first zone with a first algae-resistance intensity (as a result of claim 1 including a first concentration of algae-resistant granules), a second zone with a second algae-resistance intensity (as a result of claim 1 including a second concentration of algae-resistant granules),
but ‘579 fails to disclose the first algae-resistance intensity is different than the second algae-resistance intensity.
However, Jenkins discloses the first algae-resistance intensity (at one of 120, 112 or 108) ([0067]) is different than ([0067]; as a result of the zones having varying colors, one will have a higher resistance than another) the second algae-resistance intensity (at another of 120, 112 or 108).
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 roofing product of ‘579 with the first algae-resistance intensity is different than the third algae-resistance intensity as disclosed by Jenkins in order to match colors to other parts of the building, or to help control insulation for homes during colder months, or to better deflect sunlight.
Re claim 23 of the pending application and claims 1, 3 and 19 of ‘579, each discloses a first collection of algaecidal roofing granules.
Re claim 27 of the pending application and claim 6 ‘579, each discloses wherein the second algaecide concentration is in the range of 0.02% by weight to 20% by weight.
Re claim 36 of the pending application and claim 3 ‘579, each discloses the first zone disposed at an upper edge of the lower section of the roofing product.
Re claim 39 of the pending application and claim 3 ‘579, each discloses the second zone disposed at a lower edge of the lower of the roofing product.
Claims 22, 24-26, 28-35, 37-38 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim(s) 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,152,932 in view of Jenkins et al (“Jenkins”) (US 2017/0284100).
Re claim 21 of the pending application and claim 1 of ‘932, each discloses a roofing product, an upper section, an exposure section, a top surface, a bottom surface, a plurality of zones, a first zone with a first algae-resistance intensity (as a result of claim 1 including a first concentration of algae-resistant granules), a second zone with a second algae-resistance intensity (as a result of claim 1 including a second concentration of algae-resistant granules),
but ‘354 fails to disclose the first algae-resistance intensity is different than the second algae-resistance intensity.
However, Jenkins discloses the first algae-resistance intensity (at one of 120, 112 or 108) ([0067]) is different than ([0067]; as a result of the zones having varying colors, one will have a higher resistance than another) the second algae-resistance intensity (at another of 120, 112 or 108).
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 roofing product of ‘392 with the first algae-resistance intensity is different than the third algae-resistance intensity as disclosed by Jenkins in order to match colors to other parts of the building, or to help control insulation for homes during colder months, or to better deflect sunlight.
Re claim 23 of the pending application and claim 1 of ‘932, each discloses a first collection of algaecidal roofing granules.
Re claim 38 of the pending application and claim 2 of ‘932, each discloses wherein the first zone is disposed at an upper edge of the exposed section of the roofing product or (at a lower edge of the exposed section of the roofing product; being an or clause) .
Re claim 39 of the pending application and claim 3 of ‘932, each discloses wherein the second zone is disposed at a lower edge of the exposed section of the roofing product or (at an upper edge of the exposed section of the roofing product; being an or clause).
Re claim 40 of the pending application and claim 19 of ‘932, each discloses a method of manufacturing a roofing product according to claim 1 including, providing a substrate with, a top surface, a bottom surface, a plurality of zones, a first zone with a first algae-resistance intensity (as a result of claim 1 include a first concentration of algae-resistant granules), a second zone with a second algae-resistance intensity (as a result of claim 1 include a second concentration of algae-resistant granules),
but ‘932 fails to disclose a first algae-resistance intensity and a second algae-resistance intensity.
However, Jenkins discloses the first algae-resistance intensity (at one of 120, 112 or 108; [0067]; as a result of the zones having varying colors, one will have a higher resistance than another) and a second algae-resistance intensity (at another of 120, 112 or 108).
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 roofing product of ‘932 a first algae-resistance intensity and a second algae-resistance intensity as disclosed by Jenkins in order to match colors to other parts of the building, or to help control insulation for homes during colder months, or to better deflect sunlight.
Claims 24-26, 28-29, 31, 33-37 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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(s) 25, 27 and 40 is/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 25 and 27, claims 25 and 27 recite, “concentration of…roofing granules in the range of 1% to 20% (claim 25), “concentration of…roofing granules in a range of 0% to 15%” (claim 25), and “concertation of…roofing granules in a range of 0% to 20% (claim 27). This language requires a range of roofing granule concentration. But it does not provide for what this concentration is compared to. For example, the roofing granules are 1% to 20% of what? For the purposes of this examination, this language will be interpreted as requiring roofing granule compositions in ranges as compared to the other claimed zones.
Re claim 40, claim 40 recites various features such as “a substrate” and “a top surface” for example. However, claim 40 is dependent on claim 21 which already introduces these features. Thus, it is unclear if the features of claim 40 which are again introduced, but are also introduced in claim 21, are the same or different than those in claim 21. For the purposes of this examination, this language will be interpreted as the same features as claim 21, interpreted as “the substrate” and “the top surface,” for example.
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 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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 35, 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jenkins et al (“Jenkins”) (US 2017/0284100).
Re claim 1, Jenkins discloses a roofing product (100) including an upper section (at the arrow to 102 in Fig. 1) and an exposed section (118), the roofing product comprising:
a substrate (102, 104) including a top surface (top of 102 and 104) and a bottom surface (bottom of 102 and 104); and
a plurality of zones (at 108, at 106, at 124 in Fig. 6) of roofing granules ([0063]) disposed on the top surface (top of 102 and 104) of the substrate (102, 104), the plurality of zones (at 108, at 106, at 104 in Fig. 6) including:
a first zone (at 106) within the exposed section (118) of the roofing product, the first zone (at 106) having a first algae-resistance intensity (at 106; [0067]; as a result of the zones having colors),
a second zone (at 108) within the exposed section (118) of the roofing product (100), the second zone (104) having a second algae-resistance intensity (at 108; [0067]; as a result of the zones having colors),
wherein the first algae-resistance intensity (at 106) is different from (Fig. 1) the second algae-resistance intensity (at 108 – Fig. 1 shows shaded zones of varying color, as defined in [0063]. Because these areas are comprised of roofing granules defining various shaded colors, light will be absorbed differently at each zone, affecting the resistance to algae growth due to light absorption. The claim presently does not define and particular material defining algae resistance, nor does it define the particular juxtaposition of each zone with respect to the remainder of the roofing product).
Re claim 22, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, wherein the roofing product (100) is a roofing shingle ([0024]), a roofing membrane, or a roofing tile.
Re claim 23, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, wherein the first zone (at 106) has a first concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules (Fig. 1).
Re claim 24, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, wherein the first zone (at 106) has a first concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules (Fig. 1), the second zone (at 104) has a second concentration of algae resistant granules (Fig. 1), and wherein the first concentration (at 106) is higher than (Fig. 1, [0067] disclosing sizing of the granules being different thus effecting the concentrations thereof) the second concentration (at 108).
Re claim 35, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, wherein the first zone (at 106) has a first group of roofing granules (Fig. 1, [0062]) having a first color ([0067]) that is different from ([0067]) a second color ([0067]) of a second group of roofing granules ([0062]) in the second zone (at 108).
Re claim 38, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, wherein the first zone (at 106) is disposed at an upper edge (upper edge of 118) of the exposed section (18) of the roofing product (100) or at a lower edge of the exposed section of the roofing product (as this is an or clause).
Re claim 39, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 38, wherein the second zone (at 108) is disposed at a lower edge (lower edge of 118) of the exposed section (118) of the roofing product (100) or at an upper edge of the exposed section of the roofing product (as this is an or clause).
Re claim 40, Jenkins discloses aa method of manufacturing ([0067]) a roofing product (100) according to claim 21 (see above), the method comprising:
providing (Fig. 1 showing 102/104 provided) a substrate (102, 104) including a top surface (top of 102 and 104) and a bottom surface (bottom of 102 and 104); and
depositing (Fig. 1 showing the zones deposited) a plurality of zones (at 108, at 106, at 124 in Fig. 6) of roofing granules ([0063]) on the top surface (top of 102 and 104) of the substrate (102, 104), the plurality of zones (at 108, at 106, at 104 in Fig. 6) including:
a first zone (at 106) within the exposed section (118) of the roofing product, the first zone (at 106) having a first algae-resistance intensity (at 106; [0067]; as a result of the zones having colors),
a second zone (at 108) within the exposed section (118) of the roofing product (100), the second zone (104) having a second algae-resistance intensity (at 108; [0067]; as a result of the zones having colors – Fig. 1 shows shaded zones of varying color, as defined in [0063]. Because these areas are comprised of roofing granules defining various shaded colors, light will be absorbed differently at each zone, affecting the resistance to algae growth due to light absorption. The claim presently does not define and particular material defining algae resistance, nor does it define the particular juxtaposition of each zone with respect to the remainder of the roofing product).
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 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.
Claim(s) 25-27, 30, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al (“Jenkins”) (US 2017/0284100).
Re claim 25, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the first zone includes a concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules in a range of 1% to 20%, and the second zone includes a concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules in a range of 0% to 15%.
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 roofing product of Jenkins wherein the first zone includes a concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules in a range of 1% to 20%, and the second zone includes a concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules in a range of 0% to 15% (such as by varying size of granules in each zone) in order to provide the desired shading and color effect for a better aesthetic appeal. In general, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 26, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules in the first zone is at least 1% higher than the concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules in the second zone.
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 roofing product of Jenkins wherein the concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules in the first zone is at least 1% higher than the concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules in the second zone. (such as by varying size of granules in each zone) in order to provide the desired shading and color effect for a better aesthetic appeal. In general, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 27, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the second zone includes a concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules in a range of 0% to 20%.
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 roofing product of Jenkins wherein the second zone includes a concentration of algae-resistant roofing granules in a range of 0% to 20% (such as by varying size of granules in each zone) in order to provide the desired shading and color effect for a better aesthetic appeal. In general, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 30, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the roofing product (100) comprises algae-resistant granules ([0063], [0067] due to colorization), but fails to disclose the algae-resistant granules having algaecide concentrations in a range from 0.02% by weight to 50% by weight.
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 roofing product of Jenkins with the algae-resistant granules having algaecide concentrations in a range from 0.02% by weight to 50% by weight (of the entire roofing product, such as by varying size of granules in each zone) in order to provide the desired shading and color effect for a better aesthetic appeal. In general, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 36, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 35, but fails to disclose wherein a first group of roofing granules e and the second group of roofing granules have a color difference AE of at least 2.
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 roofing product of Jenkins wherein a first group of roofing granules e and the second group of roofing granules have a color difference AE of at least 2 in order to provide greater algae-resistance in desired areas such as those that gain more sunlight and/or water. In general, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Claim(s) 28-29, 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al (“Jenkins”) (US 2017/0284100) in view of Kalkanoglu et al (Kalkanoglu”) (US 2011/0104422).
Re claim 28, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the first zone comprises an inorganic algaecide, consisting of copper oxide, copper compounds, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, silver, copper, zinc, and mixtures thereof; or an organic algaecide, comprising of zinc pyrithione, amines and ammonium salts, quaternary ammonium chloride, ammonium compounds, chloride compounds; or a combination of inorganic and organic algaecides.
However, Kalkanoglu discloses wherein the first zone (Jenkins: at 106) comprises an inorganic algaecide, consisting of copper oxide, copper compounds, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, silver, copper, zinc, and mixtures thereof ([0090] disclsoign copper and zinc); or an organic algaecide, comprising of zinc pyrithione, amines and ammonium salts, quaternary ammonium chloride, ammonium compounds, chloride compounds; or a combination of inorganic and organic algaecides (as this is an “or” clause).
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 roofing product of Jenkins wherein the first zone comprises an inorganic algaecide, consisting of copper oxide, copper compounds, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, silver, copper, zinc, and mixtures thereof; or an organic algaecide, comprising of zinc pyrithione, amines and ammonium salts, quaternary ammonium chloride, ammonium compounds, chloride compounds; or a combination of inorganic and organic algaecides as disclosed by Kalkanoglu in order to help reduce or delay the formation of algae or other organic growth ([0090]).
Re claim 28, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the first zone includes a first group of algae-resistant granules that have a first algaecide concentration that is different from an algaecide concentration of any of the granules of the second zone.
However, Kalkanoglu discloses a roofing product (10) wherein the first zone (30) includes a first group of algae-resistant granules (34) that have a first algaecide concentration (34) that is different from (Fig. 1) an algaecide concentration (18) of any of the granules (20) of the second zone (18).
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 roofing product of Jenkins wherein the first zone includes a first group of algae-resistant granules that have a first algaecide concentration that is different from an algaecide concentration of any of the granules of the second zone as disclosed by Kalkanoglu in order to provide varying leaching rates that can be controlled that the roofing product can be tailored to specific local conditions, and have sustained algae-resistance over extended periods of time ([0013]).
Re claim 31, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the first group of algae-resistant granules have a first algaecide concentration that is higher than any class of granules in the second zone.
However, Kalkanoglu discloses wherein the first group of algae-resistant granules (34) have a first algaecide concentration (34) that is higher than (Fig. 1) any class of granules (20) in the second zone (18).
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 roofing product of Jenkins wherein the first group of algae-resistant granules have a first algaecide concentration that is higher than any class of granules in the second zone as disclosed by Kalkanoglu in order to provide varying leaching rates that can be controlled that the roofing product can be tailored to specific local conditions, and have sustained algae-resistance over extended periods of time ([0013]).
Re claim 32, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the first zone includes a first group of algae-resistant granules that have an algaecide time-release characteristic that is different from an algaecide time-release characteristic of any of the granules of the second zone.
However, Kalkanoglu discloses wherein the first zone (30) includes a first group of algae-resistant granules (34) that have an algaecide time-release characteristic (Claim 1, Abstract) that is different from an algaecide time-release characteristic (Claim 1, Abstract) of any of the granules (20) of the second zone (18).
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 roofing product of Jenkins wherein the first zone includes a first group of algae-resistant granules that have an algaecide time-release characteristic that is different from an algaecide time-release characteristic of any of the granules of the second zone as disclosed by Kalkanoglu in order to provide varying leaching rates that can be controlled that the roofing product can be tailored to specific local conditions, and have sustained algae-resistance over extended periods of time ([0013]).
Re claim 33, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the second zone comprises an inorganic algaecide, consisting of copper oxide, copper compounds, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, silver, copper, zinc, and mixtures thereof; or an organic algaecide, comprising of zinc pyrithione, amines and ammonium salts, quaternary ammonium chloride, ammonium compounds, chloride compounds; or a combination of inorganic and organic algaecides.
However, Kalkanoglu discloses wherein the second zone (Jenkins: at 108) comprises an inorganic algaecide, consisting of copper oxide, copper compounds, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, silver, copper, zinc, and mixtures thereof ([0090] disclosing copper and zinc); or an organic algaecide, comprising of zinc pyrithione, amines and ammonium salts, quaternary ammonium chloride, ammonium compounds, chloride compounds; or a combination of inorganic and organic algaecides (as this is an “or” clause).
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 roofing product of Jenkins wherein the second zone comprises an inorganic algaecide, consisting of copper oxide, copper compounds, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, silver, copper, zinc, and mixtures thereof; or an organic algaecide, comprising of zinc pyrithione, amines and ammonium salts, quaternary ammonium chloride, ammonium compounds, chloride compounds; or a combination of inorganic and organic algaecides as disclosed by Kalkanoglu in order to help reduce or delay the formation of algae or other organic growth ([0090]).
Re claim 34, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the first zone includes a first group of algae-resistant granules that have an algaecide time-release characteristic that is different from an algaecide time-release characteristic of any of the granules of the second zone.
However, Kalkanoglu discloses wherein the first zone (30) includes a first group of algae-resistant granules (34) that have an algaecide time-release characteristic (Claim 1, Abstract) that is different from an algaecide time-release characteristic (Claim 1, Abstract) of any of the granules (20) of the second zone (18).
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 roofing product of Jenkins wherein the first zone includes a first group of algae-resistant granules that have an algaecide time-release characteristic that is different from an algaecide time-release characteristic of any of the granules of the second zone as disclosed by Kalkanoglu in order to provide varying leaching rates that can be controlled that the roofing product can be tailored to specific local conditions, and have sustained algae-resistance over extended periods of time ([0013]).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al (“Jenkins”) (US 2017/0284100) in view of Kalkanoglu et al (Kalkanoglu 2”) (US 2008/0118640).
Re claim 37, Jenkins discloses the roofing product according to claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the first zone includes a first group of algae-resistant granules that have a release delay that is different from a release delay of any granules of the second zone.
However, Kalkanoglu 2 discloses a release delay ([0103]).
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 roofing product of Jenkins with a release delay as disclosed by Kalkanoglu 2 in order to protect from the environemtn ([0103]).
In addition, 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 roofing product of Jenkins wherein the first zone includes a first group of algae-resistant granules that have a release delay that is different from a release delay of any granules of the second zone in order to provide continuous algae resistance over an extended period of time ([0053]).
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, 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