DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The Restriction election received on 08/24/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention Group II. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/24/2026.
Drawings
Figures 2A and 2B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 of this title, 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) 1-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant’s admitted prior art in view of LaTorre et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,473,305).
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches a hip and ridge roofing material (figures 1-4) comprising: an overlay sheet (210) comprising a top overlay surface, a bottom overlay surface, a front portion, and a back portion (figure 2A), the overlay sheet comprising a first substrate coated with a first asphalt coating composition (para 46); an underlay sheet (320) comprising a top underlay surface and a bottom underlay surface (figure 2B), the underlay sheet comprising a second substrate coated with a second asphalt coating composition (para 46), wherein the overlay sheet is attached to the underlay sheet (figure 3) such that a portion of the top underlay surface (at 316) extends beyond the back portion of the overlay sheet, forming an uncovered portion (figure 3); and wherein the front portion of the overlay sheet is folded under the underlay sheet such that a front edge contacts the bottom underlay surface (figure 4), forming a folded portion (400); a release material (290) located on the underlay sheet in the uncovered portion (figure 4).
Applicant’s admitted prior art does not specifically disclose a reinforced nail zone located in the back portion of the top overlay sheet, proximate to the release material; and a sealant located on a portion of the bottom surface of the folded portion.
LaTorre et al. discloses a shingle (abstract) including a reinforced nail zone (col. 4, lines 20-21) located in the back portion of the top overlay sheet, proximate to the release material (in the combination, it is understood that the reinforced nail zone of LaTorre et al. would be located in the back portion of the top overlay sheet, proximate to the release material of applicant’s admitted prior art); and a sealant (col. 4, lines 36-38) located on a portion of the bottom surface of the folded portion (in the combination, it is understood that the sealant of LaTorre et al. would be located on a portion of the bottom surface of the folded portion of applicant’s admitted prior art).
Therefore, from the teaching of LaTorre et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shingle of applicant’s admitted prior art to include a reinforced nail zone located in the back portion of the top overlay sheet, proximate to the release material; and a sealant located on a portion of the bottom surface of the folded portion, as taught by LaTorre et al., in order to provide optimal securement of the shingle to the roof ridge by increasing the bonding strength and therefore minimizing the chance of unintended detachment due to inclement weather.
Regarding claim 2, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the overlay sheet is attached to the underlay sheet by an adhesive (para 62).
Regarding claim 3, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the first asphalt coating composition comprises polymer modified asphalt coating (para 47).
Regarding claim 4, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the polymer modified asphalt coating comprises: asphalt; a polymer additive; and a secondary additive (para 48).
Regarding claim 5, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the secondary additive comprises a wax (para 48).
Regarding claim 6, applicant’s admitted prior art does not specifically disclose the polymer modified asphalt coating comprises 85-99 wt. % asphalt, 1-13 wt. % polymer additive, and 1-6 wt. % wax.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the polymer modified asphalt coating comprises 85-99 wt. % asphalt, 1-13 wt. % polymer additive, and 1-6 wt. % wax, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the polymer modified asphalt coating comprises 85-99 wt. % asphalt, 1-13 wt. % polymer additive, and 1-6 wt. % wax, in order to discover the blend that produces the optimal balance of durability, adhesion, and reduced material costs.
Regarding claim 7, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the polymer modified asphalt coating further comprises a filler (para 46).
Regarding claim 8, LaTorre et al. in the combination teaches the reinforced nail zone comprises a strip of nail zone reinforcement material (19; figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, LaTorre et al. in the combination teaches the strip of nail zone reinforcement material comprises a woven polyester fabric (col. 10, lines 37-38).
Regarding claim 10, LaTorre et al. in the combination teaches the sealant is positioned in a location on the foldable portion adapted to contact a reinforced nail zone of an adjacent hip and ridge shingle upon installation on a roof (in the combination, it is understood that the sealant of LaTorre et al. would be positioned in a location on the foldable portion of applicant’s admitted prior art adapted to contact a reinforced nail zone of an adjacent hip and ridge shingle upon installation on a roof).
Regarding claim 11, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches a hip and ridge roofing material (figures 1-4) comprising: a laminated shingle (para 46; figures 2A – 2B) having a foldable front portion, an opposing back portion, a top surface an opposing bottom surface (figure 3), and a foldable centerline (figure 3), wherein the laminated shingle includes: an overlay sheet (210) comprising a first substrate (figure 2A) coated with a polymer modified asphalt coating composition (para 46-47) attached to an underlay sheet (320) comprising a second substrate (figure 2B) coated with an at least partially oxidized asphalt coating composition (para 46), wherein an upper surface of the overlay sheet defines the top surface and a lower surface of the underlay sheet defines the bottom surface (figures 1-4), and wherein the foldable front portion of the laminated shingle is folded down below the underlay sheet such that a front edge of the foldable front portion contacts the bottom surface (figure 4), forming a folded portion (400); wherein the laminated shingle is foldable along the centerline for application to a roof (figures 3-4).
Applicant’s admitted prior art does not specifically disclose a reinforced nail zone located on the top surface in the back portion, proximate to a back edge; and a sealant located on a bottom surface of the folded portion.
LaTorre et al. discloses a shingle (abstract) including a reinforced nail zone (col. 4, lines 20-21) located on the top surface in the back portion, proximate to a back edge (in the combination, it is understood that the reinforced nail zone of LaTorre et al. would be located on the top surface in the back portion, proximate to a back edge of applicant’s admitted prior art); and a sealant (col. 4, lines 36-38) located on a bottom surface of the folded portion (in the combination, it is understood that the sealant of LaTorre et al. would be located on a bottom surface of the folded portion of applicant’s admitted prior art).
Therefore, from the teaching of LaTorre et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shingle of applicant’s admitted prior art to include a reinforced nail zone located on the top surface in the back portion, proximate to a back edge; and a sealant located on a bottom surface of the folded portion, as taught by LaTorre et al., in order to provide optimal securement of the shingle to the roof ridge by increasing the bonding strength and therefore minimizing the chance of unintended detachment due to inclement weather.
Regarding claim 12, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the overlay sheet is attached to the underlay sheet by an adhesive (para 62).
Regarding claim 13, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the polymer modified asphalt coating comprises: asphalt; a polymer additive; and a secondary additive (para 48).
Regarding claim 14, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the secondary additive comprises a wax (para 48).
Regarding claim 15, applicant’s admitted prior art does not specifically disclose the polymer modified asphalt coating comprises 85-99 wt. % asphalt, 1-13 wt. % polymer additive, and 1-6 wt. % wax.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the polymer modified asphalt coating comprises 85-99 wt. % asphalt, 1-13 wt. % polymer additive, and 1-6 wt. % wax, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the polymer modified asphalt coating comprises 85-99 wt. % asphalt, 1-13 wt. % polymer additive, and 1-6 wt. % wax, in order to discover the blend that produces the optimal balance of durability, adhesion, and reduced material costs.
Regarding claim 16, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the polymer modified asphalt coating further comprises a filler (para 46).
Regarding claim 17, LaTorre et al. in the combination teaches the reinforced nail zone comprises a strip of nail zone reinforcement material (19; figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, LaTorre et al. in the combination teaches the strip of nail zone reinforcement material comprises a woven polyester fabric (col. 10, lines 37-38).
Regarding claim 19, LaTorre et al. in the combination teaches the sealant is positioned in a location on the foldable portion adapted to contact a reinforced nail zone of an adjacent hip and ridge shingle upon installation on a roof (in the combination, it is understood that the sealant of LaTorre et al. would be positioned in a location on the foldable portion of applicant’s admitted prior art adapted to contact a reinforced nail zone of an adjacent hip and ridge shingle upon installation on a roof).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to ridge shingles in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights