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 dated 6/23/2026 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. 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Claims 32-33 and 37-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species I and III-VIII, there being no allowable generic or linking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 6/23/2026. Specifically regarding claims 37-40, it is the Examiner’s position that the claims are directed towards an unelected embodiment and are therefore withdrawn. Claim 37 refers to a first wedge and an opposed second wedge which is clearly shown in Fig. 51, identified as Species VIII, and therefore not included in the elected species. Since Applicant has elected Species II, claim 37 and its dependent claims 38-40 will also be withdrawn as non-elected.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 26 incorporate Figs. 52-53 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 21-24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson US 5263551 (hereinafter Anderson).
Re. Cl. 21, Anderson discloses: A method of using a roof support system (see Fig. 2-13 and Col. 2, Lines 48-50) comprising a generally triangular wedge (10, Fig. 1a) on roof surfaces of varying slope (see Figs. 3-6 and Col. 2, Lines 48-50), wherein the wedge comprises a single longitudinally-extending core member made from a core material (see 10, Fig. 1a, Col. 5, Lines 18-21), the core comprising a first roof contact side (created by 76, 78, 80, 82), a first working surface (64, Fig. 1a) extending away from a first free edge (see at 38, Fig. 1a) thereof at a first fixed acute angle (a) (see angle 54, 30 degrees in Col. 4, Lines 1-5) from the first roof contact side (see Fig. 1a), a second working surface (created by 20, 28, Fig. 1a-b) extending away from an opposed second free edge (at 44, Fig. 1b) thereof at a second fixed acute angle (B) from the first roof contact side toward the first working surface (angle 60, Fig. 1b, being 89 degrees, Col. 4, Lines 1-5) and a resiliently compressible cover layer (Col. 4, Lines 23-24, rubber padding) comprising a resiliently compressible cover material (rubber, Col. 4, Lines 23-24) that is disposed on the first roof contact side (Col. 4, Lines 23-24); the method comprising: positioning the wedge on a first roof surface (see Fig. 5, shown supporting a ladder 90 on a ground surface having a first pitch, but in Col. 2, Lines 48-50 discusses supporting a ladder on a roof surface, therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the device is to be used on a roof having a similar slope to the ground shown in Fig. 5 in the same manner) having a first predetermined pitch in a first orientation with the cover layer resting on the first roof surface and the first free edge facing upslope to orient the first working surface in a substantially horizontal first position (see Fig. 5 and Col. 2, Lines 48-50); and repositioning the wedge on a second roof surface (see Fig. 4, on roof surface 96) having a second predetermine pitch that is different than the first pitch in a second orientation (see Fig. 4) with the cover layer resting on the second roof surface (see Fig. 4) and the second free edge facing upslope to orient the second working surface in a substantially horizontal second position (see Fig. 4, so as to support 94).
Re. Cl. 22, Anderson discloses: placing a roofing load comprising roofing material on the first working surface while the wedge is in either the first position or on the second working surface while the wedge is in the second position (see 94, Fig. 4, it is the Examiner’s position that the scaffolding is a roofing load).
Re. Cl. 23, Anderson discloses: placing a roofing load comprising a roofing worker on the first working surface while the wedge is in either the first position or on the second working surface while the wedge is in the second position (see Fig. 4-5, by having the user stand on the scaffolding 94 or climb the ladder 90).
Re. Cl. 24, Anderson discloses: the roofing worker moving, walking, standing, crouching, kneeling, sitting, or lying on the first working surface and/or the second working surface (see Fig. 4-5, by having the user standing on the ladder 90 or scaffolding 94).
Re. Cl. 27, Anderson discloses: the generally triangular wedge comprises a triangular, scalene trapezoidal, irregular quadrilateral, or truncated triangular shape (see Fig. 1a).
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.
Claim 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Brisendine US 2016/0090209 and Sheybani US 2006/0226305 (hereinafter Sheybani).
Re. Cls. 25-26, Anderson discloses that the core material could be wood, plastics, metal or any other sufficiently strong material (Col. 5, Lines 18-21) and that the cover material is rubber (Col. 4, Lines 23-24) and therefore do not disclose the specific materials claimed. 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 Anderson material to be as disclosed by Brisendine with reasonable expectation of success since Anderson discloses that other strong materials can be used (Col. 5, Lines 18-21) and Brisendine states that the particular 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.
Further, Re. Cls. 25-26, the combination of Anderson in view of Brisendine does not disclose that the cover material is made out of the materials claimed. It is the Examiner’s position that Anderson only discloses the use of a rubber cover layer, but does not specify if its synthetic or natural rubber as required by claim 25 and is therefore lacking sufficient disclosure for claim 25. 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. 25-26, 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 rubber material of Anderson to be polyurethane foam as disclosed by Sheybani with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to replace one known means for another to achieve a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR)
Claim 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Bel US 2010/0127002 (hereinafter Bel).
Re. Cl. 28, Anderson discloses the core member comprises a laterally extending first end (12, Fig. 1a) comprising a first recess defining a first handle or grip (see 22, Fig. 1a; 22 creates a first handle or grip that a user could grab or grip onto 94 as shown in Fig. 3) and an opposed laterally extending second end (14, Fig. 1b) comprising an integral second recess (see Fig. 1b, under 40) defining a second handle or grip (see Fig. 1b, 30 creates a second handle or grip that a user could grab or grip onto 94 as shown in Fig. 3). Anderson does not explicitly disclose positioning and/or repositioning further comprises a roofing working grasping the first handle and/or the second handle with at least one hand, lifting the wedge and placing the wedge in the first position or the second position respectively. Bel discloses that it is known to use a first and second side wall cutout/recess (3, Fig. 2) for handles (Paragraph 0038, Lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sidewall recesses of Anderson as handles as disclosed by Bel with reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would better enable the use of two hands when carrying the device which would be particularly useful when carrying the Anderson device as shown in Fig. 11. Such a modification would be advantageous when carrying supplies (114) which could spill (i.e. paint, glue, adhesives, etc.) if they aren’t maintained in a level position since the user could use both hands to ensure that the device remains level and the supplies remain upright.
Re. Cl. 28, specifically the limitation “a roofing worker grasping the first handle and/or the second handle with at least one hand, lifting the wedge, and placing the wedge in the first position or the second position respectively,” it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the method steps obvious as a matter of “routine optimization” or design choice since common sense would lend the user to perform the steps recited in claim 28. It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to carry out the method steps in an obvious fashion to enable for a two handed gripping or moving of the device for instance. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combined Anderson in view of Bel device in the method claimed with reasonable expectation of success since it would be obvious to try the claimed method steps. As discussed above, Anderson illustrates that the device is positioned/repositioned in various configurations (see Figs. 2-11) to support ladders or scaffolding, thus providing a finding that there has been a
recognized problem or need in the art (i.e. a support that can be positioned and repositioned according to different use environments). It is the Examiner's position that there are a finite number of predictable potential solutions to the problem or need since there are only a finite number of ways in which a user may grasp onto the device and move it into its desired positions. For instance, a user has very few options as to how to move the Anderson device, a few are listed as follows: 1) grabbing the member (118) and moving it into/out of position; 2) using a tool, rope, etc. to slide the Anderson device to its particular position; 3) grasping the side edges (22, 30) of Anderson and lifting it to put it in the desired configuration (i.e. the step recited in claim 28 of Applicant's invention). It is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the user could easily manually attempt each option listed above in order to determine which method works best for them in particular situations. Furthermore, it is the Examiner's position that the user would be especially motivated to try the claimed method since it would likely be simplest manner while on a roof surface since the user could simply reach down, grasp the side recess, lift it and reposition the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the claimed method in an attempt to simply move the device between in use configurations, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Claims 29-31 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Blais US 2006/0000180 (hereinafter Blais).
Re. Cl. 29, Anderson discloses: A method of using a roof support system (see Fig. 2-13 and Col. 2, Lines 48-50) comprising a generally triangular wedge (10, Fig. 1a) on roof surfaces of varying slope (see Figs. 3-6 and Col. 2, Lines 48-50), wherein the wedge comprises a single longitudinally-extending core member made from a core material (see 10, Fig. 1a, Col. 5, Lines 18-21), the core comprising a first roof contact side (created by 76, 78, 80, 82), a first working surface (64, Fig. 1a) extending away from a first free edge (see at 38, Fig. 1a) thereof at a first fixed acute angle (a) (see angle 54, 30 degrees in Col. 4, Lines 1-5) from the first roof contact side (see Fig. 1a), a second working surface (created by 20, 28, Fig. 1a-b) extending away from an opposed second free edge (at 44, Fig. 1b) thereof at a second fixed acute angle (B) from the first roof contact side toward the first working surface (angle 60, Fig. 1b, being 89 degrees, Col. 4, Lines 1-5), the first and second working surfaces defining a fixed include angle therebetween (see Fig. 1a, angle between 64 and 20), a laterally extending first end thereof (12, Fig. 1a) comprising an integral first recess (see Fig. 1a, under 22) defining a first handle or grip (see Fig. 1a, 22 creates a first handle or grip that a user could grab or grip onto 94 as shown in Fig. 3), and an opposed laterally extending second end thereof (see 14, Fig. 1b) comprising an integral second recess (see Fig. 1b, under 40) defining a second handle or grip (see Fig. 1b, 30 creates a second handle or grip that a user could grab or grip onto 94 as shown in Fig. 3), and a resiliently compressible cover layer (Col. 4, Lines 23-24, rubber padding) comprising a resiliently compressible cover material (rubber, Col. 4, Lines 23-24) that is disposed on the first roof contact side (Col. 4, Lines 23-24); the method comprising: positioning the wedge on a first roof surface (see Fig. 5, shown supporting a ladder 90 on a ground surface having a first pitch, but in Col. 2, Lines 48-50 discusses supporting a ladder on a roof surface, therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the device is to be used on a roof having a similar slope to the ground shown in Fig. 5 in the same manner) having a first predetermined pitch in a first orientation with the cover layer resting on the first roof surface and the first free edge facing upslope to orient the first working surface in a substantially horizontal first position (see Fig. 5 and Col. 2, Lines 48-50); and repositioning the wedge on a second roof surface (see Fig. 4, on roof surface 96) having a second predetermine pitch that is different than the first pitch in a second orientation (see Fig. 4) with the cover layer resting on the second roof surface (see Fig. 4) and the second free edge facing upslope to orient the second working surface in a substantially horizontal second position (see Fig. 4, so as to support 94).
Re. Cl. 30, Anderson discloses: placing a roofing load comprising roofing material and/or a roofing worker on the first working surface while the wedge is in the first position or on the second working surface while the wedge is in the second position (see 94, Fig. 4-5 or having the user stand on the scaffolding or climb the ladder 90).
Re. Cl. 31, Anderson discloses: the roofing worker moving, walking, standing, crouching, kneeling, sitting, or lying on the first working surface and/or the second working surface (see Fig. 4-5, by having the user standing on the ladder 90 or scaffolding 94).
Re. Cl. 34, Anderson discloses: the generally triangular wedge comprises a triangular, scalene trapezoidal, irregular quadrilateral, or truncated triangular shape (see Fig. 1a).
Re. Cl. 35, Anderson discloses: the generally triangular wedge comprises a scalene trapezoidal, irregular quadrilateral, or truncated triangular shape (see Fig. 1a) and a fourth side opposite the first side (see 66, Fig. 1a).
Re. Cl. 29, Anderson does not disclose that the fixed angle is obtuse. Anderson discloses that the first angle is acute (Col. 3, Lines 64-65) specifically “substantially 80 degrees” (Col. 4, Lines 1-3), the second angle is acute (Col. 3, Lines 64-65) specifically “substantially 30 degrees” (Col. 4, Lines 3-4) but the dimensions used in the preferred embodiment are not intended as limitations upon the scope of the invention (Col. 5, Lines 27-31). Therefore, Anderson supports that the dimensions are result effective variables able to be modified based on their intended use. Blais discloses a roofing support system (Fig. 1) the angles created between 20 and 12, and 28 and 12 (corresponding to angles a and b in Anderson as annotated above) are adjustable to various different positions while remaining acute (see Fig. 2, by selecting which 30 the pin 29 engages) to produce the result of ensuring that the body is horizontal on particular roof pitches. 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 Anderson 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).
Claim 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Blais as applied above and in further view of Bel US 2010/0127002 (hereinafter Bel).
Re. Cl. 36, Anderson discloses the core member comprises a laterally extending first end (12, Fig. 1a) comprising a first recess defining a first handle or grip (see 22, Fig. 1a; 22 creates a first handle or grip that a user could grab or grip onto 94 as shown in Fig. 3) and an opposed laterally extending second end (14, Fig. 1b) comprising an integral second recess (see Fig. 1b, under 40) defining a second handle or grip (see Fig. 1b, 30 creates a second handle or grip that a user could grab or grip onto 94 as shown in Fig. 3). Anderson does not explicitly disclose positioning and/or repositioning further comprises a roofing working grasping the first handle and/or the second handle with at least one hand, lifting the wedge and placing the wedge in the first position or the second position respectively. Bel discloses that it is known to use a first and second side wall cutout/recess (3, Fig. 2) for handles (Paragraph 0038, Lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sidewall recesses of Anderson as handles as disclosed by Bel with reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would better enable the use of two hands when carrying the device which would be particularly useful when carrying the Anderson device as shown in Fig. 11. Such a modification would be advantageous when carrying supplies (114) which could spill (i.e. paint, glue, adhesives, etc.) if they aren’t maintained in a level position since the user could use both hands to ensure that the device remains level and the supplies remain upright.
Re. Cl. 36, specifically the limitation “a roofing worker grasping the first handle and/or the second handle with at least one hand, lifting the wedge, and placing the wedge in the first position or the second position respectively,” it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the method steps obvious as a matter of “routine optimization” or design choice since common sense would lend the user to perform the steps recited in claim 28. It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to carry out the method steps in an obvious fashion to enable for a two handed gripping or moving of the device for instance. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combined Anderson in view of Bel device in the method claimed with reasonable expectation of success since it would be obvious to try the claimed method steps. As discussed above, Anderson illustrates that the device is positioned/repositioned in various configurations (see Figs. 2-11) to support ladders or scaffolding, thus providing a finding that there has been a
recognized problem or need in the art (i.e. a support that can be positioned and repositioned according to different use environments). It is the Examiner's position that there are a finite number of predictable potential solutions to the problem or need since there are only a finite number of ways in which a user may grasp onto the device and move it into its desired positions. For instance, a user has very few options as to how to move the Anderson device, a few are listed as follows: 1) grabbing the member (118) and moving it into/out of position; 2) using a tool, rope, etc. to slide the Anderson device to its particular position; 3) grasping the side edges (22, 30) of Anderson and lifting it to put it in the desired configuration (i.e. the step recited in claim 28 of Applicant's invention). It is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the user could easily manually attempt each option listed above in order to determine which method works best for them in particular situations. Furthermore, it is the Examiner's position that the user would be especially motivated to try the claimed method since it would likely be simplest manner while on a roof surface since the user could simply reach down, grasp the side recess, lift it and reposition the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the claimed method in an attempt to simply move the device between in use configurations, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. O’Farrell US 5232187, Bond US 5887406 and Brown US 2002/0027091 disclose other known roofing supports presented to the Applicant for their 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
Prosecution Insights