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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/1/2025, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 41-43, 45-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimondo (WO2017136957, herein Dimondo), in the view of Guymon (US20150018460, herein Guymon).
Regarding claims 41, 46, Dimondo teaches asphalt composition, comprising: wax material [0005] wherein, producing wax from plastic feedstocks [0019] via depolymerization employ catalysts [0044]; “Base Asphalt” [0117].
Dimondo teaches 10% by weight of SBS (styrene-butadiene-styrene) [0117] as rubber, but is silent on ground tire rubber, however, Guymon teaches ground tire rubber 0-50% [P4; Table 1] overlaps the claimed range. Dimondo and Guymon are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the functional asphalt composite toward roofing application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute ground tire rubber 0-50% [P4; Table 1] into the asphalt composition formation, because doing so would further lead to: a) the sustainable and cost-effective manufacturing process [0020]; b) provide an environmentally-friendly, cost-effective, and clean way to dispose of such materials [0040].
As the composition of Dimondo does not have any substances that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, the teaching is deemed to anticipated the claim language "consisting essentially of" (see MPEP 2111.03).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 42, 43, Dimondo teaches polymeric feed include both polyethylene and polypropylene materials [0039].
Regarding claim 45, Dimondo teaches followed by 4% wax addition [0120] lies in the claimed range.
Regarding claims 47, Dimondo and Guymon teach the asphalt formulation as set forth in claim 41 above, Dimondo does not explicitly teach the recycled plastics and the range, however, Guymon teaches recycled material (ethylene propylene copolymer), 0%-51%, [P4; Table 2] reads on the recycled plastics, and overlaps the claimed range. Dimondo and Guymon are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the functional asphalt composite toward roofing application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add recycled material (ethylene propylene copolymer), 0%-51%, [P4; Table 2] into the asphalt composition formation, because doing so would further lead to: a) the sustainable and cost-effective manufacturing process [0020]; b) provide an environmentally-friendly, cost-effective, and clean way to dispose of such materials [0040].
Regarding claim 48, Dimondo teaches 90% by weight of Base Asphalt [0117] lies in the claimed range.
Claims 44, 49-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimondo (WO2017136957, herein Dimondo), and Guymon (US20150018460, herein Guymon) as applied in the claim 41 above, and in the view of Kumar (US20120016169, herein Kumar).
Regarding claims 44, 49-56, Dimondo and Guymon teach the asphalt formulation as set forth in claim 41 above, which excluded the compatibilizer via non-selection of any; Dimondo teaches material selection stage 1, polymeric feed is selected; the material selected in material selection stage 1 comprises recycled plastics; contaminants, such as metals [0038-40].
Dimondo teaches depolymerization can employ catalysts, but does not explicitly teach the specific catalyst, however, Kumar teaches [Fe—Cu—Mo—P]/Al2O3 [0020], Dimondo and Kumar are analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the wax formation via the specified depolymerization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute [Fe—Cu—Mo—P]/Al2O3 [0020] into the wax formation, because doing so would further achieve the optimized manufacturing process owing to the desired property of the specific catalyst that of stable throughout the reaction temperatures of 300° C.-600° C. and depolymerizes HDPE, LDPE, and LLDPE equally. The catalyst is also unaffected by any pigment impurities. [0056]. Furthermore, owing to the process and materials specificity as taught by Dimondo and Kumar collectively, can further lead to the as-formed wax has the claimed properties including: melting point, viscosity, acid number.
Claim 57-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimondo (WO2017136957, herein Dimondo), in the view of Guymon (US20150018460, herein Guymon) and Mathis (US8206500, herein Mathis).
Regarding claims 57-58, Dimondo and Guymon teach the asphalt formulation according to the instant application specification. Dimondo is silent on the asphalt extender, however, Mathis teaches asphalt extender [P1; L33]. Dimondo and Mathis are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the functional asphalt composition formation via selection of recycled ingredients. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the asphalt extender [P1; L33] into the asphalt composite of Dimondo, because doing so would further achieve the optimized product development process owing to the selection of “asphalt extender” [P1; L33] which can lead to both manufacturing optimization and economic advantage owing to the fact that “the asphalt extender will allow for larger amount of asphalt bearing waste material to be used in a performance grade asphalt mix. This additional asphalt bearing material would reduce the cost of the performance grade asphalt mix and impart desired physical properties usually not found in a conventional performance grade asphalt mix.” [P1; L34].
Claims 59-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimondo (WO2017136957, herein Dimondo), in the view of Guymon (US20150018460, herein Guymon) and Fee (US20110196073, herein Fee).
Regarding claims 59-60, Dimondo and Guymon teach the asphalt formulation according to the instant application specification. Dimondo is silent on the cross linking agent, however, Fee teaches crosslinking agent is added to heated asphalt and mixed into the asphalt to form an asphalt-crosslinking agent mixture [0024]. Dimondo and Fee are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the functional asphalt composition development for roofing applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the crosslinking agent [0024] into the asphalt composite system, because doing so would further achieve the optimized product development process owing to the selection of “crosslinking agent” [0024] can lead to the desired property of “the addition of the crosslinking agent before the addition of acid and crosslinkable polymer resulted in a modified asphalt with improved properties. The % recovery, as measured by Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) test, is increased, indicating improved crosslinking. Further, the non-recoverable creep compliance, Jnr, as measured by MSCR, is generally decreased, indicating improved rut resistance.” [0025]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dimondo (WO2017136957, herein Dimondo), and Guymon (US20150018460, herein Guymon) as set forth above in the new rejection.
In this case, the new added reference_ Guymon explicitly teaches ground tire rubber 0-50% [P4; Table 1].
Additionally, another newly added reference_Kumar and Dimondo collectively teach the formation of the specified wax via depolymerization process with the specific catalyst as set forth in the new rejection above, which can further lead to the specific wax with the special structure and property, according to the instant application.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights