Application N0.:
`Filing Date:
`
`15/783813
`October 13, 2017
`
`REMARKS
`
`In reply to the non—final Office Action dated January 16, 2020 (“Office Action”), and the
`
`Notice of Non—Compliant Amendment mailed July 21, 2020 (“Notice”), Applicant respectfully
`
`submits the following amendments and the following remarks for consideration.
`
`Claim Amendments
`
`In Applicant’s previous reply to the Office Action submitted on July 15, 2020, Claims 1—
`
`17 were canceled and new Claims 18—26 have been added.
`
`In the Notice, the Examiner stated
`
`that because the claims have been amended to include only claims drawn to a system, the claims
`
`are restricted based on the election of method claims by original presentation. Without
`
`acquiescing to the Examiner’s grounds for the constructive election, Applicant has amended
`
`Claims 18—26 to recite claims drawn to a method. The amendments are supported throughout the
`
`application as filed, including, e.g., the original Claims 11—17 and the Specification at (H [0110]—
`
`[0117]. Thus, no new matter is added. Applicant respectfully requests the entry of the
`
`amendments and reconsideration of the application in View of the remarks set forth below.
`
`Claim Re'ections under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112
`
`The Office Action rejected Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(pre—AIA), second paragraph, as
`
`being indefinite. The rejection of cancelled Claim 17 is moot.
`
`Double Patenting Rejections
`
`The Office Action rejected Claim 11—14 and 17 as being rejected on the ground of non—
`
`statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 3—7 of US 9,822,535, and
`
`Claims 15—16 over Claims 1 and 3—7 of US 9,822,535 in View of Starr (US 6,206,991). The
`
`rejections are moot in View of cancelled Claims 11—14 and 17.
`
`Claim Re'ections under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103
`
`The Office Action rejected Claims 11, 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Crook (US 2005/0217202) in View of Hammer (US 4,061,519) or prior art
`
`allegedly admitted as prior art by Applicant (Allegedly Admitted Prior Art). The Office Action
`
`rejected Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crook in View of Hammer
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Application N0.:
`Filing Date:
`
`15/783813
`October 13, 2017
`
`or Allegedly Admitted Prior Art, and further in view of Bettencourt (US2002/0095898). The Office
`
`Action rejected Claims 15—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crook in view of
`
`Hammer or Allegedly Admitted Prior Art, and further in view of Starr (US 6,206,991).
`
`The rejections of canceled Claims
`
`11—17 are now moot.
`
`Nevertheless, Applicant
`
`respectfully submits the following remarks, in which Applicant first discusses the patentability of
`
`Claim 18, followed by the patentability of the dependent claims.
`
`Patentability of New Claims
`
`New independent Claim 18 recites:
`
`A method of providing covers over at least a portion of a surface area of a built
`
`structure; the system comprising:
`
`a heat shrinkable film of a polymer material stretching over the portion of the
`
`surface area,
`
`wherein the heat shrinkable film is formed as a sheet or an assembly of lengths of
`
`the polymer material,
`
`wherein the heat shrinkable film is retained on the portion of the surface area
`
`by attaching a trailing edge of the heat shrinkable film to a length of a batten and
`
`securing the batten t0 the built structure, and
`
`wherein the polymer material
`
`is manufactured from a blend of low density
`
`polyethylene resins.
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`Prior art ails to disclose each and eve
`
`eature includin
`
`that “the heat shrinkable ilm is
`
`retained on the 0rti0n 0 the sur ace area b attachin a trailin ed e 0 the heat shrinkable
`
`film to a length of a batten and securing the batten t0 the built structurez ” as recited in Claim 18.
`
`The Examiner considers using a batten to secure a film to a roof structure is obvious over
`
`a combination of Crook and Starr. For example, the Examiner stated:
`
`in the method of Crook, the sheet may be attached to the roof structure with fasteners (See {0049]).
`
`
`
`Application N0.:
`Filing Date:
`
`15/783813
`October 13, 2017
`
`Starr teaches a method of constructing a roof, the method comprising using batten strips (24)
`
`over a sheet of underlayment (22) (See Figures; col. 7, lines 9—46).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use
`
`batten strips as a fastener for holding the sheet of Crook to the roof structure. Crook teaches that any
`
`suitable fastener may be used (See [0049}). Starr teaches that batten strips were known in the prior art
`
`as being suitable for fastening underlayment sheets (See Figures; col. 7, lines 9-46). As such, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that "any appropriate fastening device” as taught by
`
`Crook would include batten strips. Regarding the placement of the batten strips, such placement would
`
`have been a routine matter of design choice for one of ordinary skiil in the art such that the use of a
`
`batten strip on eaves, rafters, walls, or any other portion of a building structure would have been
`
`obvious depending upon where it is desired to fasten the sheet.
`
`Office Action at p. 9—10. However, the Examiner has not established that Crook and Starr,
`
`individually or in combination, teaches or suggests that “the heat shrinkable film is retained on
`
`the portion of the surface area by attaching a trailing edge of the heat shrinkable film to a length
`
`of a batten and securing the batten to the built structure,” as recited in Claim 18.
`
`Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to combine the
`
`teachings of Crook with Starr. As disclosed in ‘J[ [0049] of Crook, “a fastener such as tape, nails,
`
`clips, clamps, or any other appropriate fastening device may be used to secure a membrane to a
`
`vertical wall adjacent an edge of a roof” instead of attaching the membrane to the roof.
`
`Meanwhile, referring col. 7, 11. 9—46 of Starr, Starr discloses a roof construction in which tiles are
`
`secured to the underlayment 22 of the roof with batten strips 24. Since attaching a film to a
`
`vertical wall is different from attaching the film onto a roof, one having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have any reason to combine the disclosure of Crook with Starr to arrive at Claim 18.
`
`In view of foregoing, new Claim 18 is patentable over Crook and Starr.
`
`New Claims 19—26 depend from Claim 18 and further recite additional features of
`
`particular utility.
`
`In view of their dependency and in further view of the additional features, new
`
`Claims 19—26 are also patentable over the cited references.
`
`
`
`Application N0.:
`Filing Date:
`
`15/783813
`October 13, 2017
`
`Dependent Claims
`
`Although Applicant has not addressed all the issues of the dependent claims, Applicant
`
`respectfully submits that Applicant does not necessarily agree with the characterization and
`
`assessments of the dependent claims made by the Examiner, and Applicant believes that each
`
`claim is patentable on its own merits. Applicant respectfully submits that the dependent claims
`
`incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which they refer and include their own
`
`patentable features, and are therefore in condition for allowance.
`
`Therefore, Applicant
`
`respectfully requests the withdrawal of all claim rejections and prompt allowance of the claims.
`
`
`
`Application N0.:
`Filing Date:
`
`15/783813
`October 13, 2017
`
`No Disclaimers or Disavowals
`
`Although the present communication may include alterations to the application or claims,
`
`or characterizations of claim scope or referenced art, Applicant
`
`is not conceding in this
`
`application that previously pending claims are not patentable. Rather, any alterations or
`
`characterizations are being made to facilitate expeditious prosecution of this application.
`
`Applicant reserves the right to pursue at a later date any previously pending or other broader or
`
`narrower claims that capture any subject matter supported by the present disclosure, including
`
`subject matter
`
`found to be specifically disclaimed herein or by any prior prosecution.
`
`Accordingly, reviewers of this or any parent, child or related prosecution history shall not
`
`reasonably infer that Applicant has made any disclaimers or disavowals of any subject matter
`
`supported by the present application.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of Applicant’s remarks, it is respectfully submitted that the present application is
`
`in condition for allowance. Should the Examiner have any remaining concerns which might
`
`prevent the prompt allowance of the application, the Examiner is respectfully invited to contact
`
`the undersigned at the telephone number appearing below. Please charge any additional fees,
`
`including any fees for additional extension of time, or credit overpayment to Deposit Account
`
`No. 11-1410.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`Dated: September 21, 2020
`
`33535826
`
`Byz/Kyu Min/
`Kyu Min
`Registration No. 67,249
`Registered Practitioner
`(415) 954—41 14
`
`
