DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: needs punctuation mark at the end of claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 16-17 recites the limitation "the connection portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, 13-14, 17 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0042579).
Regarding claim 1, McCoy discloses a gutter debris preclusion device (20) for use with a gutter attached to a building, comprising a support structure (40) being substantially rigid and having a recess with a plurality of apertures (41) and a plurality of ribs (30, 31, 32); a screen (33) having a plurality of apertures (Para [0020]) and being at least partially disposed on the ribs of the support structure; and, wherein a cross-sectional profile of the screen has an arc shape (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, McCoy discloses the arc shape of the screen is centered within the recess of the support structure (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, McCoy discloses at least one of the plurality of ribs has a top portion, the screen is disposed on the top portion, and the top portion includes a sharp edge disposed adjacent to the screen. The Examiner considers the limitation "sharp edge" to be relative and considers the vertical edge corner to be sharp (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, McCoy discloses the recess includes a floor (approximate 30-32) and two opposing side walls, each of the plurality of ribs includes a top portion having a sharp edge disposed adjacent the screen and a plurality of troughs (spaces above apertures; Figs. 3 and 6) are defined by the plurality of ribs, the floor and the two opposing side walls. The Examiner considers the limitation "sharp edge" to be relative and considers the vertical edge corner to be sharp (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, McCoy discloses the recess of the support structure includes a floor (approximate 30-32), the support structure includes a lip portion (53) operably configured to rest upon a gutter lip of the gutter and the lip includes a drip wall (approximately 35; Fig. 3), wherein the drip wall extends from the floor of the support structure into a main fluid channel of the gutter when the device is in use.
Regarding claim 7, McCoy discloses the support structure includes a lip portion (53) operably configured to rest upon a gutter lip of the gutter and the lip includes an extended tip (52), wherein the extended tip extends past the gutter lip of the gutter when the device is in use (Figs. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 8, McCoy discloses the arc profile of the screen has an arc height, wherein the height of the arc profile increases in relation to a roof pitch of thebuilding to which the device will be attached (Figs. 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 10, McCoy discloses the support structure includes a tab (34) operably configured to be attachable to the building.
Regarding claim 13, McCoy discloses a gutter debris preclusion device (20) for use with a gutter attached to a building, comprising a support structure (40) being substantially rigid and having a recess with a plurality of apertures (41; Fig. 4) and a plurality of ribs (30-32; Fig. 5); a screen (33) having a plurality of apertures (Para [0020]) and being at least partially disposed on the ribs of the support structure (Fig. 6); and wherein the support structure includes a connection member (52, 53) operably configured to engage a gutter lip of the gutter without additional fasteners.
Regarding claim 14, McCoy discloses a cross-sectional profile of the screen has an arc shape (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, McCoy discloses the connection portion includes a connecting member (53) operably configured to engage an end of the gutter lip and a lip portion (53) operably configured to engage a groove disposed an exterior surface of the gutter when the device is in use.
Regarding claim 19, McCoy discloses the support structure is attached to the gutter lip and to the building (Figs. 2 and 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 11-12, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCoy (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0042579) in view of Higginbotham (U.S. Patent No. 6,598,352).
Regarding claim 3, McCoy discloses the gutter debris preclusion device having a screen with an arc shape and a recess as set forth above but does not disclose the arc of the screen being off center from a center of the recess of the support structure. However, Higginbotham teaches that it is known to have a gutter debris preclusion device (Figs. 1-11) that has a arced screen (32) that is off center of the recess of the support structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a gutter debris preclusion device which had a support that was non-linear and asymmetrical in shape to produce the contour as needed for drainage purposes that would result in a screen that was off center of the recess.
Regarding claim 11, McCoy discloses the gutter debris preclusion device having the tab as set forth above, but does not disclose that the tab includes a bent portion operably configured to attach to a fascia of the building. However, Higginbotham teaches that it is known to have a gutter debris preclusion device (Figs. 1-11) that has a tab (58) that is bent and affixed to the fascia (Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have designed the tab to attach to the roof or fascia as desired as a well-known attachment technique.
Regarding claim 12 McCoy discloses the gutter debris preclusion device having the tab as set forth above, but does not disclose a fascia bracket operably configured to attach to a fascia of the building and wherein the tab includes a bent portion operably configured to engage the fascia bracket when in use. However, Higginbotham teaches that it is known to have a gutter debris preclusion device (Figs. 1-11) that has a tab (58) that is bent and affixed to the fascia via a fascia bracket and fastener (Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have designed the tab to attach to the roof or fascia as desired as a well-known attachment technique.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, McCoy discloses the gutter debris preclusion device having a screen with a connection portion having a lip as set forth above, but does not disclose the connection portion includes a lip portion having a top portion and a connector member or a clip that is biasedly opposed to one another and wherein the top portion is operably configured to engage a top edge of a gutter lip of the gutter and the connector member is operably configured to engage a bottom edge of a gutter lip of the gutter when the device is in use. However, Higginbotham teaches that it is known to have a gutter debris preclusion device (Figs. 1-11) that has a connection portion (approximately 7; Fig. 7) that has a top portion and a connector member that is capable of being biasedly opposed to one another to a degree and engages a top edge and bottom edge, respectively, of the gutter lip (Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have chosen an alternative fastening means such as a clip to attach the screen to the gutter lip to help make installation easier and eliminate the use of a fastener.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCoy (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0042579) in view of Dressler (U.S. Patent No. 5,044,581).
Regarding claim 9, McCoy discloses the gutter debris preclusion device having a recess as set forth above and a floor, but does not disclose the floor having a generally arced cross sectional profile. However, Dressler teaches that it is known to have a gutter debris device where the support and screen take on the shape and are both arced. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have designed a gutter debris device where the support structure is contoured the same as the screen or vice versa as an alternative way to ensure adequate support along the profile.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCoy (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0042579) in view of Lenney et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,310,912).
Regarding claim 15, McCoy discloses a gutter debris device as having a screen as set forth above, but does not disclose the cross-sectional profile of the screen being a planar shape. However, Lenney et al. discloses that it is known to have a screen which complements the contour of the support structure in which it is supported by to ensure adequate support of the screen and protection from debris. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have designed a gutter debris device where the screen and support member are complementary to ensure adequate protection and support.
Conclusion
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 16/182l438 and 18/463,176. All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no, however, event 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 JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 on 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights