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 .
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 1-2, 4, and 6 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leibrook (2,863,405).
Leibrook, fig. 1, teaches a roofing shingle comprising:
a roofing material configured to be installed on a roof deck (“roof”, column 1, line 26),
wherein the roofing material comprises a top (exposed) surface and a bottom (unexposed) surface,
wherein the bottom surface comprises a fastener zone (zone zf is a reasonable representation of a region capable of locating nails); and
a patterned adhesive disposed over the bottom surface of the roofing material,
wherein the patterned adhesive (the line of adhesive squares D) is located within the fastener zone,
wherein the patterned adhesive comprises a pattern selected from the group consisting of three or more dashes (adhesive squares are essentially dashes, fig. 1), wherein the patterned adhesive is configured to contact a second roofing material installed on the roof deck, and
wherein the patterned adhesive is arranged to overlap at least one fastener within the fastener zone between the roofing material and the second roofing material when the roofing material is installed on the roof deck, col. 1, lines 26-50.
PNG
media_image1.png
197
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1
2. Leibrook teaches the roofing shingle of claim 1, Leibrook further teaching the fastener zone comprises a plurality of fines (granules are fines).
4. Leibrook teaches the roofing shingle of claim 1, Leibrook further teaching the patterned adhesive directly contacts at least a portion of the plurality of fines within the fastener zone without any intervening layer between the patterned adhesive and the plurality of fines, fig. 7.
6. Leibrook teaches the roofing shingle of claim 1, Leibrook further teaching an area including the patterned adhesive includes a length L and a width w, wherein the fastener zone includes a length and a width, and
wherein the width of the fastener zone is greater than the width of the area, annotated fig. 1.
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 7-10 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibrook.
Claims 7 and 9 – The claims recite an obvious method of using the shingle of claims 1, 2, and 4.
Claim 8 – The claim recites an obvious method of using the shingle of claim 5.
Claim 10 – The claims recite and obvious method of using the shingle of claim 1, except Leibrook does not expressly teach attaching the bottom surface of the second roofing material to the top surface of the first roofing material comprises inserting at least one fastener into the fastener zone of the top surface of the first roofing material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the bottom surface of the second roofing material to the top surface of the first roofing material by inserting at least one fastener into the fastener zone of the top surface of the first roofing material to keep the shingles from blowing off.
Claim 3 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibrook in view of Aschenbeck (2017/0321423).
3. Leibrook does not expressly teach the fines comprises sand. Aschenbeck teaches fines comprise sand, para. 121. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the fines to comprise sand for cost effectiveness.
Claim 5 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibrook in view of Jones (2007/0130863).
5. Leibrook does not expressly teach the adhesive is a fiberized adhesive. Jones teaches adhesive is a fiberized adhesive, abstract. 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 fiberized adhesive for strength.
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
Prosecution Insights