DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 19/543,075. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 09/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 21-30 are pending.
Claims 10-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 21-30 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 21-23, 25, 26, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalkanoglu (U.S. Publication 2008/0185748).
Regarding claim 1, Kalkanoglu discloses a roofing tile (#100) comprising an injected-molded surface (The surface with features #112 is considered the surface as defined. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile surface with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the surface is injection molded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be injected molded, where the tile of Kalkanoglu teaches a topographical map on the surface with the final structure which meets the limitations of the final structure as broadly defined.) having a stored, digitally derived topographical map, the topographical map comprising digital height values corresponding to locations on the surface, applied to the surface, the topographical map defining a three-dimensional surface profile with a predetermined minimum height, maximum height, and average surface roughness (Ra) value (Paragraph 24 discloses the topographical map features #112 are impressed onto the tile product so as to give irregular recessed depths, projecting heights and patterns so as to give a natural look, where such a topography would comprise of set minimum and maximum heights and surface roughness based on the vacuum molding process and thus meet such limitations as broadly defined since specific heights or roughness values are not given. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile surface with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the map is digitally stored and derived during the injection molded process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be manufactured in a process or machine that allows for the topographical map to be digitally stored and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined, where the tile of Kalkanoglu teaches a topographical map on the surface with the final structure which meets the limitations of the final structure as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 2, Kalkanoglu discloses the topographical map is generated by a computer algorithm that assigns surface heights based on a grey-level speckle map, with grey values corresponding to specific elevations (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the map with maximum and minimum heights and Ra value are formed by a computer algorithm during the manufacturing process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be manufacturing in a process or machine that allows for independent control of the topography heights and roughness through computer algorithms and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined, where the tile of Kalkanoglu teaches a topographical map on the surface with the final structure which meets the limitations of the final structure as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 4, Kalkanoglu discloses the minimum height, maximum height, and the Ra value are independently specified and controlled during a manufacturing process of the roofing tile (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the map with maximum and minimum heights and Ra value are independently controlled during the manufacturing process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be manufacturing in a process or machine that allows for independent control of the topography heights and roughness and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 5, Kalkanoglu discloses a standard deviation of the Ra value is specified to control variation in surface roughness across the tile (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the standard deviation of the Ra value is specified and controlled during manufacturing. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be manufacturing in a process or machine that allows for control of the standard deviation of the Ra value since the vacuum molding manufacturing method of Kalkanoglu provides a specific roughness to the manufactured tile to simulate a specific tile type as needed by the end user and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 8, Kalkanoglu discloses the topographical map is defined by a set of parameters including minimum height, maximum height, mean Ra value, and standard deviation, each parameter being independently adjustable (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the minimum and maximum height and RA values and standard deviations thereof can be independently adjustable during manufacturing. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be manufacturing in a process or machine that allows for control of the specific topographical values since the vacuum molding manufacturing method of Kalkanoglu provides the depths and projections to the manufactured tile to simulate a specific tile type as needed by the end user and thus meets the end product limitations as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 9, Kalkanoglu discloses the surface profile is verified by three-dimensional surface profiling to ensure compliance with a predetermined topographical map (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the topographical map is verified by 3D surface profiling to ensure compliance. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The tiles of Kalkanoglu are configured to be inspected after manufacturing to ensure compliance and thus meet such limitations as broadly defined, where the tile of Kalkanoglu provides a topographical map with depths and projections to simulate a specific tile type as needed by the end user and thus meets the end product limitations as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 21, Kalkanoglu discloses a roofing tile (#100) comprising a surface (The surface with features #112 is considered the surface as defined. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile surface with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the surface is injection molded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be injected molded, where the tile of Kalkanoglu teaches a topographical map on the surface with the final structure which meets the limitations of the final structure as broadly defined.) having a stored, digitally derived, topographical map applied to form the surface, the topographical map comprising digital height values corresponding to locations on the surface (See paragraph 24. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile surface with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the map is digitally stored and derived during the injection molded process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be manufactured in a process or machine that allows for the topographical map to be digitally stored and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined, where the tile of Kalkanoglu teaches a topographical map on the surface with the final structure which meets the limitations of the final structure as broadly defined.), the topographical map being applied to a reveal portion (the lower portion of the tile below the nailing edge #116 of figure 1 is considered the reveal which is to be exposed during installation and use) of the tile, the reveal portion being visible when the tile is installed on a roof (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 22, Kalkanoglu discloses the topographical map defines a three-dimensional surface profile with a predetermined minimum height, maximum height, and average surface roughness (Ra) value (paragraph 24 discloses the topographical map features #112 are impressed onto the tile product so as to give irregular recessed depths, projecting heights, and patterns so as to give a natural look, where such a topography would comprise of set minimum and maximum heights and surface roughness based on the vacuum molding process and thus meet such limitations as broadly defined since specific heights or roughness are not given).
Regarding claim 23, Kalkanoglu discloses the topographical map is generated by a computer algorithm that assigns surface heights based on a grey-level speckle map, with grey values corresponding to specific elevations (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the map is generated by a computer algorithm during the manufacturing process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be manufacturing in a process or machine that allows for independent control of the topography heights and roughness through computer algorithms and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined, where the tile of Kalkanoglu teaches a topographical map on the surface with the final structure which meets the limitations of the final structure as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 25, Kalkanoglu discloses the minimum height, maximum height, and the Ra value are independently specified and controlled during a manufacturing process of the roofing tile (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the map with maximum and minimum heights and Ra value are independently controlled during the manufacturing process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be manufacturing in a process or machine that allows for independent control of the topography heights and roughness and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 26, Kalkanoglu discloses a standard deviation of the Ra value is specified to control variation in surface roughness across the tile (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the standard deviation of the Ra value is specified and controlled during manufacturing. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be manufacturing in a process or machine that allows for control of the standard deviation of the Ra value since the vacuum molding manufacturing method of Kalkanoglu provides a specific roughness to the manufactured tile to simulate a specific tile type as needed by the end user and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 29, Kalkanoglu discloses the topographical map is defined by a set of parameters including minimum height, maximum height, mean Ra value, and standard deviation, each parameter being independently adjustable (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the minimum and maximum height and RA values and standard deviations thereof can be independently controlled during manufacturing. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Kalkanoglu is such that the roofing tile can be manufacturing in a process or machine that allows for control of the specific topographical values since the vacuum molding manufacturing method of Kalkanoglu provides the depths and projections to the manufactured tile to simulate a specific tile type as needed by the end user and thus meets the end product limitations as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 30, Kalkanoglu discloses the surface profile is verified by three-dimensional surface profiling to ensure compliance with a predetermined topographical map (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the topographical map is verified by 3D surface profiling to ensure compliance. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The tiles of Kalkanoglu are configured to be inspected after manufacturing to ensure compliance and thus meet such limitations as broadly defined, where the tile of Kalkanoglu provides a topographical map with depths and projections to simulate a specific tile type as needed by the end user and thus meets the end product limitations as broadly defined.).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 21, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friedman et al. (U.S. Patent 8,206,807).
Regarding claim 1, Friedman et al. disclose a roofing tile (#10) comprising an injected-molded surface (col. 1, ll. 65-66 disclose the skin #18 with upper surface #11 can be co injected with the core #20) having a stored, digitally derived, topographical map, the topographical map comprising digital height values corresponding to locations on the surface, applied to the surface, the topographical map defining a three-dimensional surface profile with a predetermined minimum height, maximum height, and average surface roughness (Ra) value (As depicted in figures 1 and 2, the topographical map features #19 are applied to the surface of the tile product in a random manner so as to give irregular heights and patterns so as to give a natural look, where such a topography would comprise of set minimum and maximum heights and surface roughness based on the size of the recesses #19. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile surface with topographical map, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the map is digitally stored and derived during the injection molded process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Friedman et al. is such that the roofing tile can be manufactured in a process or machine that allows for the topographical map to be digitally stored and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined, where the tile of Friedman et al. teaches a topographical map on the surface with the final structure which meets the limitations of the final structure as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 6, Friedman et al. disclose the topographical map is applied to roofing tiles formed from a group of materials comprising at least one of TPV, EPDM, polymer-modified asphalt, and combinations thereof (col. 4, ll. 32-45 disclose the core #20 of such a tile can comprise of EPDM).
Regarding claim 21, Friedman et al. disclose a roofing tile (#10) comprising an injected-molded surface (col. 1, ll. 65-66 disclose the skin #18 with upper surface #11 can be co injected with the core #20) having a stored, digitally derived, topographical map applied to form the surface (see figures 1 and 2), the topographical map comprising digital height values corresponding to locations on the surface (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile surface, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the surface is formed from a topographical map that is digitally stored and derived during the injection molded process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Friedman et al. is such that the roofing tile can be manufactured in a process or machine that allows for a topographical map to be digitally stored and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined, where the tile of Friedman et al. teaches a surface with a topographical map formed on the surface with the final structure which meets the limitations of the final structure as broadly defined.), the topographical map being applied to a reveal portion (see figure 4, where the reveal portion is considered the portion of the tile exposed when in use) of the tile, the reveal portion being visible when the tile is installed on a roof (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 27, Friedman et al. disclose the topographical map is applied to roofing tiles formed from a group of materials comprising at least one of TPV, EPDM, polymer-modified asphalt, and combinations thereof (col. 4, ll. 32-45 disclose the core #20 of such a tile can comprise of EPDM).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 21, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons (U.S. Patent 6,546,688) in view of Bailey et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0079911).
Regarding claim 1, Parsons discloses a roofing tile (#10) comprising an injected-molded surface (col. 4, ll. 9-23 disclose surface #22 can comprise of granules #24 that are injected molded together). With respect to the limitations defining the surface having a stored, digitally derived, topographical map, the topographical map comprising digital height values corresponding to locations on the surface, applied to the surface, the topographical map defining a three-dimensional surface profile with predetermined minimum height, maximum height, and average surface roughness value, the granules #24 provided within the surface #22 would comprise of an average surface roughness but Parsons does not specifically disclose the height of such granules so as to defining predetermined minimum and maximum heights. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bailey et al., that typical granule particle size for roofing tiles is about 10 to 35 mesh, or 0.5 to 2 mm. See paragraph 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a mesh size of 10 to 35 for the granules of Parsons, as taught in Bailey et al., in order to use typical particle sizes for such a roofing tile and thus provide a cost effective construction.
With respect to the “stored, digitally derived topographical map” limitations, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile surface, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the surface is injection molded based on a digitally derived topographical map. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Parsons in view of Bailey et al. is such that the roofing tile can be injected molded, where the tile of Parsons in view of Bailey et al. teach a topographical map, which can be digitally represented and stored, on the surface with the final structure which meets the limitations of the final structure as broadly defined.
Regarding claim 3, Parsons in view of Bailey et al. render obvious the Ra vale is determined by a diameter and distribution of surface features, and is specified within a range of about 0.1 mm to about 10 mm (As explained above, paragraph 2 of Bailey et al. teaches a mesh of 10 to 35 for such granules, which falls within the range as defined and where such features would be provided within Parsons as explained above).
Regarding claim 7, Parsons in view of Bailey et al. render obvious the three-dimensional surface profile defines a plurality of protrusions in the stored, digitally derived topographical map, each of the protrusions having a diameter between about 0.5 mm and about 2.5 mm (As explained above, paragraph 2 of Bailey et al. teaches a mesh of 10 to 35 for such granules, which falls within the range as defined and where such features would be provided within Parsons as explained above).
Regarding claim 21, Parsons discloses a roofing tile (#10) comprising an injected-molded surface (col. 4, ll. 9-23 disclose surface #22 can comprise of granules #24 that are injected molded together) with a reveal portion of the tile being visible when the tile is installed on a roof (the surface #22 is provided over the entire top surface of the tile, where the visible portion of such a top surface would be considered the reveal portion of the tile). With respect to the limitations defining the surface having a stored, digitally derived, topographical map, the topographical map comprising digital height values corresponding to locations on the surface, applied to the surface, the topographical map defining a three-dimensional surface profile with predetermined minimum height, maximum height, and average surface roughness value, the granules #24 provided within the surface #22 would comprise of an average surface roughness but Parsons does not specifically disclose the height of such granules so as to defining predetermined minimum and maximum heights. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bailey et al., that typical granule particle size for roofing tiles is about 10 to 35 mesh, or 0.5 to 2 mm. See paragraph 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a mesh size of 10 to 35 for the granules of Parsons, as taught in Bailey et al., in order to use typical particle sizes for such a roofing tile and thus provide a cost effective construction.
With respect to the “stored, digitally derived topographical map” limitations, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile surface, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the surface is injection molded based on a digitally derived topographical map. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The material of roofing tiles of Parsons in view of Bailey et al. is such that the roofing tile can be injected molded, where the tile of Parsons in view of Bailey et al. teach a topographical map, which can be digitally represented and stored, on the surface with the final structure which meets the limitations of the final structure as broadly defined.
Regarding claim 24, Parsons in view of Bailey et al. render obvious the Ra vale is determined by a diameter and distribution of surface features, and is specified within a range of about 0.1 mm to about 10 mm (As explained above, paragraph 2 of Bailey et al. teaches a mesh of 10 to 35 for such granules, which falls within the range as defined and where such features would be provided within Parsons as explained above).
Regarding claim 28, Parsons in view of Bailey et al. render obvious the three-dimensional surface profile defines a plurality of protrusions in the stored, digitally derived topographical map, each of the protrusions having a diameter between about 0.5 mm and about 2.5 mm (As explained above, paragraph 2 of Bailey et al. teaches a mesh of 10 to 35 for such granules, which falls within the range as defined and where such features would be provided within Parsons as explained above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “none of Kalkanoglu, Bailey and Friedman shows or suggests a topographical map that includes digital height values corresponding to locations on the surface,” Applicant appears to further define a topographical map which is digitally derived and thus related to how the roofing tile is formed. Whether such a topographical map is formed before, during, or after, or even at all, does not affect the overall final structure of such a roofing tile since the roofing tile still has a surface with a three dimensional surface profile with minimum and maximum heights and an average surface roughness value which can be digitally derived. As noted above, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the roofing tile surface, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the surface is injection molded based on a digitally derived topographical map. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The final roofing tile structure of each of the prior art inventions above comprises of a three-dimensional surface profile which can be stored digitally as a topographical map and which can be injected molded and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D Mattei can be reached at (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 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
