DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “wherein the exposed surface comprises a textured granule-free polymer film disposed on thee exposed surface” was not supported in the specification. The specification provides no support for a textured granule-free exposed surface layer as this phrase contains a negative limitation. The specification does not explicitly provide support for the film to not contain granules.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues et al (US Publication 20050130519) in view of Friedman (CA 2469546) and Kalkanoglu (CA 2719589).
As to claims 1, 2, 4-13 Rodrigues discloses a roofing shingle which includes an asphalt coated substrate. The substrate comprises fibrous material such as synthetic fibers and glass fibers (paragraph 22). The asphalt coating can comprise organic fillers (paragraph 23). Rodrigues discloses that granules are not essentially provided on the stop surface (paragraph 26) and that they can not be provided (paragraph 34). However, this reference is silent to a back surface covering of sand and the top surface of the shingle.
Friedman discloses a synthetic roofing shingle wherein a skin material is provided on the top surface that has desirable weather withstanding properties. The skin material is made of a plastic film that can be exposed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rodrigues and added the skin layer of Friedman as it would create a more aesthetically pleasing shingle as an alternative to the colored granules that are optional as well as a cheaper protective shingle layer.
Kalkanoglu discloses a roofing product that comprises an asphalt coated base material and discloses the use of a parting agent made of sand or slag to keep the product from sticking to itself when in a spool or bundle of shingles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rodrigues and Friedman and added a parting agent on the bottom surface of the shingle as it would allow for easier transportation and manufacturing of the shingles.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues et al (US Publication 20050130519), Friedman (CA 2469546) and Kalkanoglu (CA 2719589) in view of Shiao (CA 2545903).
Rodrigues, Friedman and Kalkanoglu renders claim 1 obvious for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the use of polypropylene as the mat.
Shaio discloses an aspalt coated shingle comprising fibers of polypropylene as well as glass fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rodrigues, Friedman and Kalkanoglu and sued polypropylene fibers as they would be a suitable alternative as Rodrigues discloses the use of synthetic fibers as the mat. See MPEP 2144.06.
Conclusion
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights