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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II in the Remarks filed 6/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is based on the grounds that the embodiments are directed to a unitary concept and based on various policy arguments. These arguments are unpersuasive. The arguments set forth by the applicant (i.e., a want of a serious burden on the examiner, or inventions having the same classification) are arguments commonly set forth when traversing a restriction of the invention. (See MPEP 803). However, the examiner is requiring the applicant to elect between several disclosed species. A proper traversal of an election of species includes arguments that the species are not patentable over one another. Since the applicant has not submitted persuasive arguments that the embodiments are not distinct from one another, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 21-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species I and III-VIII, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/10/2026. Specifically regarding claims 21-27, it is the Examiner’s position that the claims are directed towards an unelected embodiment and are therefore withdrawn. Claim 21 refers to a “dual wedge shaped lateral cross section comprising two wedges” which is clearly shown in Fig. 51 as identified as species VIII. Therefore, claim 21 and it dependents 22-26 are withdrawn as non-elected. Re. Cl. 27, the claim requires a pocket, which is disclosed as being reference character (60) and shown in Fig. 1, thus being included in species I which is also not elected. Therefore, claim 27 will be withdrawn as being drawn towards a non-elected embodiment.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3, 6 and 8 incorporate Figs. 22-23 which is improper per MPEP 2173.05(s). As discussed in the section, the claims are to be complete in themselves and incorporation by reference to a specific figure is table is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing of table into the claim. It is the Examiner’s position that this situation is not exceptional and there is a practical way of putting the limitations into words. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2, which includes the same limitations in claim 7 has been amended to change the abbreviations of the materials while claim 7 has not. For consistency, it is suggested that the Applicant use consistent symbols to avoid confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1, 4, 6, 9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell US 5232187 (hereinafter O’Farrell) in view of Blais US 2006/0000180 (hereinafter Blais) in view of Brown US 2002/0027091 (hereinafter Brown) in view of Brisendine US 2016/0090209 (hereinafter Brisendine).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 1, O’Farrell discloses: A lightweight composite roofing support system (Fig. 1), comprising: a single longitudinally-extending core member (14, Fig. 1) comprising a wedge-shaped lateral cross-section comprising a longitudinally-extending first roof contact side (22, Fig. 3) comprising a longitudinally extending first free edge and an opposed longitudinally extending second free edge (see Fig. 1-3), a longitudinally extending second side (see annotated figure 3) comprising a second side working surface (see annotated figure 3) having a second width and a longitudinally-extending second length (see Fig. 1-3, the surface of the second side comprises a “working surface” that the user is able to use for various things, i.e. to step on, walk on, kneel on, place items on, etc.), the second side tapering toward the first free edge at a first fixed acute angle (a) from the first roof contact side (see annotated figure 3), a longitudinally extending third side (see annotated figure 3) comprising a third side working surface having a third width and a longitudinally-extending third length (see Fig. 1-3, the surface of the third side comprises a “working surface” that the user is able to use for various things, i.e. to step on, walk on, kneel on, place items on, supporting the paint bucket 12, etc.), the third side tapering the second free edge at a second fixed acute angle (p) from the first roof contact side (see annotated figure 3, angle b) that is different than the first predetermined acute angle (a) (see Fig. 3) the second side and third side defining a fixed angle between them (see Fig. 1-3), a laterally extending first end and an opposed laterally extending second end (see Fig. 1-2, sides on which handles 26 attach), the core member comprising a core material comprising a rigid or substantially rigid material (see Fig. 1-3, as being substantially rigid to support the paint bucket as desired and Col. 2, Lines 8-10), and a resiliently compressible cover layer (20, Fig. 1) comprising a resiliently compressible cover material comprising a resiliently compressible polymer (soft sponge material, Col. 2, Lines 9-11; sponge material is made of various different polymers as evidenced by the attached NPL cited on the PTO-892), the cover layer disposed on the first roof contact side (see Fig. 3), the core member and cover layer comprising a first roofing support (see Fig. 1-3).
Re. Cl. 4, O’Farrell discloses: the wedge-shaped lateral cross-section comprises a triangular (see Fig. 3), scalene trapezoidal, irregular quadrilateral or truncated triangle shape.
Re. Cl. 6, O’Farrell discloses: A lightweight composite roofing support system (Fig. 1), comprising: a single longitudinally-extending core member (14, Fig. 1) comprising a wedge-shaped lateral cross-section, a longitudinally-extending first roof contact side (22, Fig. 3) comprising a longitudinally extending first free edge and an opposed longitudinally extending second free edge (see Fig. 1-3), a longitudinally extending second side (see annotated figure 3) comprising a second side working surface (see annotated figure 3) having a second width and a longitudinally-extending second length (see Fig. 1-3, the surface of the second side comprises a “working surface” that the user is able to use for various things, i.e. to step on, walk on, kneel on, place items on, etc.), the second side tapering toward the first free edge at a first fixed acute angle (a) from the first roof contact side (see annotated figure 3), a longitudinally extending third side (see annotated figure 3) comprising a third side working surface having a third width and a longitudinally-extending third length (see Fig. 1-3, the surface of the third side comprises a “working surface” that the user is able to use for various things, i.e. to step on, walk on, kneel on, place items on, supporting the paint bucket 12, etc.), the third side tapering the second free edge at a second fixed acute angle (p) from the first roof contact side (see annotated figure 3, angle b) that is different than the first predetermined acute angle (a) (see Fig. 3) the second side and third side defining a fixed angle between them (see Fig. 1-3), a laterally extending first end and an opposed laterally extending second end (see Fig. 1-2, sides on which handles 26 attach), the core member comprising a core material (see Fig. 1-3, as being substantially rigid to support the paint bucket as desired and Col. 2, Lines 8-10), and a resiliently compressible cover layer (20, Fig. 1) comprising a resiliently compressible cover material comprising a resiliently compressible polymer (soft sponge material, Col. 2, Lines 9-11; sponge material is made of various different polymers as evidenced by the attached NPL cited on the PTO-892), the cover layer disposed on the first roof contact side (see Fig. 3), the core member and cover layer comprising a first roofing support (see Fig. 1-3).
Re. Cl. 9, O’Farrell discloses: the wedge-shaped lateral cross-section comprises a triangular (see Fig. 3), scalene trapezoidal, irregular quadrilateral or truncated triangle shape.
Re. Cl. 19, O’Farrell discloses: the first fixed acute angle (a) corresponds to a first roof pitch and provides a substantially horizontal upslope facing orientation of the second side working surface on a first sloped roof surface having the first roof pitch and a predetermined range of similar roof pitches that are greater than or less than the first roof pitch, and the second acute angle (b) corresponds to a second roof pitch different than the first roof pitch and provides a substantially horizontal upslope facing orientation of the third side working surface on a second sloped roof surface having the second roof pitch and a predetermined range of similar roof pitches that are greater than or less than the second roof pitch (see Fig. 1-3, due to the annotated angles in annotated figure 3, the device would provide a “substantially horizontal upslope facing orientation” when the 2nd and 3rd sides are placed upslope on roofs having pitches “corresponding” to the angles (a) and (b) shown; in other words, the angles illustrated in Fig. 3 of O’Farrell are angles such that that when placed as described in the claimed intended use, the second working surface would be “substantially horizontal;” the Examiner notes that the term “substantially” is a term of degree which is broad as discussed in MPEP 2173.05(b))).
Re. Cls. 1 and 6, O’Farrell does not disclose the second/third length is greater than the second/third width; the fixed angle (y) is obtuse; the core member material is engineering thermoset or thermoplastic polymer/comprising an expanded polymer foam having properties within the ranges set forth in Fig. 52; or the first and second ends comprising integral recesses defining handles or grips. Blais discloses a roofing support system (Fig. 1) which has its longitudinally extending width (longitudinal dimensions of 12s) greater than its width (distance between 16 and 18, Fig. 1) so that the system creates a more secure base by spanning at least two roof trusses (Abstract, Lines 1-4 for example). Further, Blais discloses that the angles created between 20 and 12, and 28 and 12 (corresponding to angles a and b in O’Farrell as annotated above) are adjustable to various different positions (see Fig. 2, by selecting which 30 the pin 29 engages). It is the Examiner’s position that as can be seen in Fig. 2, by employing the slot (30) which is the second from the left end of 12, the angle created between 20 and 28 would be obtuse.
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 O’Farrell device to have its longitudinal length be greater than its width as disclosed by Blais with reasonable expectation of success since Blais states that such a modification enables the base to span two or more roof trusses thus providing a more secure mode of attachment to the roof (Paragraph 0019, Lines 1-3). Furthermore, 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 O’Farrell device to have its second and third side defining an obtuse angle as disclosed by Blais with reasonable expectation of success since Blais states that modifying the angle depending on the pitch of the roof will ensure the body (20) is horizontal (Paragraph 0016, Lines 8-12).
Re. Cls. 1 and 6, O’Farrell in view of Blais does not disclose the core member material is engineering thermoset or thermoplastic polymer/comprising an expanded polymer foam having properties within the ranges set forth in Fig. 52; or the first and second ends comprising integral recesses defining handles or grips. As seen in Figs. 1-3, O’Farrell discloses the use of handles (26) as a carrying mechanism for the user (Col. 2, Lines 11-15). Brown discloses a roofing support system (10, Fig. 1) which includes first and second ends (16, Fig. 1) including integral recesses (42, Fig. 3) defining handles or grips (see Fig. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the handles of O’Farrell with the handles of Brown with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to replace one known means with another to achieve a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR)
Re. Cls. 1 and 6, O’Farrell in view of Blais in view of Brown does not disclose the core member material is engineering thermoset or thermoplastic polymer/comprising an expanded polymer foam having properties within the ranges set forth in Fig. 52. Brisendine discloses a composite support system (Fig. 48, 61) which comprises a core material in the form of an engineering thermoset or thermoplastic polymer/comprising an expanded polymer foam having properties within the ranges set forth in Fig. 52 (EPP, Paragraph 0129).
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 O’Farrell material to be as disclosed by Brisendine with reasonable expectation of success since Brisendine states that such a material can be manufactured so that its interior surfaces can be puncture or water-resistant (Paragraph 0129, Lines 1-5), thus adding a further advantage increasing the device’s durability.
Re. Cl. 20, the combination of O’Farrell in view of Blais would disclose a roofing support system wherein the first acute angle corresponds to a 10/12 pitch roof and the second acute angle corresponds to a 12/12 second roof pitch in the Examiner’s position. As discussed above, O’Farrell discloses the use of different fixed acute angles (a and b, shown in annotated figure 3) which would enable the user to employ the device on roof surfaces having different pitches. Blais discloses the concept of adjusting the three angles by selecting which 30 the pin 29 engages (between 20 and 12, and 28 and 12 which correspond to angles a and b in O’Farrell as annotated above) so that the surface (20) will remain horizontal depending on various different roof pitches (Paragraph 0016, Lines 8-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the angles a and b correspond to the claimed roof pitches as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)..
Claims 2-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell in view of Blais in view of Brown in view of Brisendine as applied above, and further in view of Sheybani US 2006/0226305 (hereinafter Sheybani).
Re. Cls. 2-3 and 7-8, the combination discussed above disclose the core material polymer comprises a rigid or substantially rigid polypropylene, expanded foam comprising polypropylene (Paragraph 0129, Lines 1-4 in Brisendine) but does not disclose the cover material comprises the materials listed. Sheybani discloses a supporting device (Fig. 5) which includes a core material (420, Fig. 5) and a cover material (480, Fig. 5) on a bottom side of the device configured to engage a supporting surface (see Fig. 5). Re. Cls. 2-3 and 7-8, Sheybani discloses that it is known to use a polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0048, Lines 10-12) which functions to grip and prevent sliding of the device along a supporting surface (Paragraph 0048, Lines 1-4)
Therefore, 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 soft sponge material of O’Farrell to be polyurethane foam as disclosed by Sheybani with reasonable expectation of success since Sheybani states that such a modification prevents the device from slipping on a supporting surface (Paragraph 0048, Lines 1-4). Furthermore, it would have been obvious since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 5, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Farrell in view of Blais in view of Brown in view of Brisendine as applied above, and further in view of Rose US 2009/0173849 (hereinafter Rose).
Re. Cls. 5, 10 and 18, the combination discussed above does not disclose the first working surface and/or the second working surface comprise a non-skid surface (Cl. 5), at least one of the second side working surface and third side working surface comprise a non-skid surface (Cl. 10), the non-skid surface comprises a plurality of protruding traction elements (Cl. 18). Rose discloses a paint support platform (Fig. 4) which includes a paint can/bucket receptacle (460) and a surrounding surface (424) which forms a working surface (see Fig. 4), wherein the working surface comprise a non-skid surface (created by 462, 464, Fig 4 and 8, the protrusions for a non-skid surface for paint trays as discussed in Paragraph 0059) created by protruding traction elements (see 462, 464 Fig. 4 and 8).
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 O’Farrell device to have the pattern (462 and 464) on its working surface as disclosed by Rose with reasonable expectation of success since Rose states that such a modification enables for paint trays of various sizes to be supported without sliding (Paragraph 0059, Lines 2-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith US 2019/0218799, Bourbonnais US 2015/0021452, Davis 2012/0085590, Hall US 2006/0226310, Miller US 6170222 and Bond US 5887406 disclose other known roofing support systems which are presented for the Applicant's consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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 GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
