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 .
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 21, 25-29, 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimondo (WO2017136957, herein Dimondo), in the view of Naidoo (US20180312694, herein Naidoo).
Regarding claims 21, 29, Dimondo teaches asphalt composition, comprising: “wax material” [0005]; made by “producing wax from plastic feedstocks” [0019] via “depolymerization employ catalysts.” [0044]
“Base Asphalt” [0117].
Dimondo is silent on ground tire rubber, however, Naidoo teaches “GTR modified asphalt” [0143] and the concentration of “10% GTR” [0165] lies in the claimed range.
Dimondo and Naidoo are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the functional asphalt composition development via selection of recycled additive. 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 teachings of Naidoo, i.e. add “GTR modified asphalt” [0143] and the concentration of “10% GTR” [0165] into the asphalt composition of Dimondo, because doing so would further achieve the optimized product development process owing to the selection of “10% GTR” [0165] can lead to the product development toward desired property as of “the additives of the present invention stabilize GTR in asphalt so that the GTR modified asphalt now meets the SBS gold standard regarding the cigar test of 2° C. (3.6° F.).” [0144] as taught by Naidoo.
Regarding claims 25-26, Dimondo teaches “the polymeric feed in sorted/selected to include polypropylene material; PET” [0039] matches the claimed polymers.
Regarding claim 27, Dimondo teaches “recycled plastics” [0040]
Regarding claim 28, Dimondo teaches “followed by 4% wax addition” [0120] lies in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 31, Dimondo teaches “90% by weight of Base Asphalt” [0117] lies in the claimed range.
Regarding claims 32, 33, Dimondo teaches “waxes, including those with melt point 110-130°C; viscosity 100-2000 cps.” [0056] both lie in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 34, Dimondo teaches the process of wax formulation as of “wax was produced from the depolymerization of post-consumer polyethylene” [0110] matches the claimed method as of “the wax is made by depolymerizing and/or thermally degrading polymeric material” [Instant application-0020], hence, the acid number is inherent property for the wax, which was formulated via the same method.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimondo (WO2017136957, herein Dimondo) and Naidoo (US20180312694, herein Naidoo) as applied to claim 21 above, in the view of Mathis (US8206500, herein Mathis)
Regarding claim 22, Dimondo teaches the basic claimed asphalt formulation as set forth above, regarding claim 21. 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 the functional asphalt composition development 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” of Mathis [P1; L33] into the asphalt composite system of Dimondo, because doing so would further achieve the optimized product development process owing to the selection of “asphalt extender” [P1; L33] 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]
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimondo (WO2017136957, herein Dimondo) and Naidoo (US20180312694, herein Naidoo) as applied to claim 21 above, in the view of Ruan (US20160017148, herein Ruan).
Regarding claim 3, Dimondo teaches the basic claimed asphalt formulation as set forth above, regarding claim 21. Dimondo is silent on the asphalt flux, however, Ruan teaches “asphalt flux” [0023]. Dimondo and Ruan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field 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 “asphalt flux” [0023] as taught by Ruan into the asphalt composite system of Dimondo, because doing so would further achieve the optimized product development process owing to the selection of “asphalt flux” [0023] can lead to the manufacturing optimization toward roofing application owing to the fact that “Oxygen in the air reacts with asphalt flux and its stiffness is thereby increased dramatically” [0023].
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimondo (WO2017136957, herein Dimondo) and Naidoo (US20180312694, herein Naidoo) as applied to claim 21 above, in the view of Fee (US20110196073, herein Fee).
Regarding claim 24, Dimondo teaches the basic claimed asphalt formulation as set forth above, regarding claim 21. 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 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] as taught by Fee into the asphalt composite system of Dimondo, 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]
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimondo (WO2017136957, herein Dimondo) as applied to claim 21 above, in the view of Forgac (US20030195278, herein Forgac).
Regarding claim 30, Dimondo teaches the basic claimed asphalt formulation as set forth above, regarding claim 21. Dimondo does not explicitly teach the range of recycled plastic, however, Forgac teaches “The source of the solid plastic would typically be scrap or recycle material such as from carpet and plastic bottles; 50 weight percent” [0020] matches the claimed recycled plastic and lies in the claimed range.
Dimondo and Forgac are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the functional asphalt composition development via selection of recycled additive. 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 teachings of Forgac, i.e. add “The source of the solid plastic would typically be scrap or recycle material such as from carpet and plastic bottles; 50 weight percent” [0020] into the asphalt composition of Dimondo, because doing so would further achieve the optimized product development process owing to the selection of recycled plastic and the range can lead to the product development toward desired property as of “an asphalt additive prepared predominantly from liquefied polymer scrap and liquefied recycled polymer articles of manufacture serves to improve the properties of asphalt compared to the properties of asphalt having no such additive.” [0144] as taught by Forgac.
Claims 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naidoo (US20180312694, herein Naidoo), in the view of Dimondo (WO2017136957, herein Dimondo)
Regarding claims 35-40, Naidoo teaches asphalt composition, consisting: “wax component” [0029]; “Base Asphalt” [Table 1; P14]; “GTR modified asphalt” [0143] match the claimed composition.
Naidoo teaches “GTR modified asphalt” [0143] and the concentration of “10% GTR” [0165] lies in the claimed range.
Naido does not explicitly teach the wax formation, however, Dimondo teaches wax formulation via depolymerization, as of: “the generated depolymerization product material includes waxes” [0085] and “the polymeric feed in sorted/selected to include polypropylene material; PET” [0039]; “recycled plastics” [0040], matches the claimed polymers, and the “waxes, including those with melt point 110-130°C.” [0056] lies in the claimed range.
Naidoo and Dimondo are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the functional asphalt composition development via selection of recycled additive. 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 teachings of Dimondo, i.e. the specified wax formation process into the asphalt composition of Naido, because doing so would further lead to the desired property of “This leads to a more homogenous product with improved high temperature thermal and structural properties.” [0041].
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2025 of “one looking at Naidoo to teach the combination of a wax and ground tire rubber in an asphalt formulation would not seek to use a wax that would result in an increase in viscosity, especially given the knowledge that the RheopaveTM additive apparently required by Naidoo already results in an increase in viscosity.”, is not persuasive.
Firstly, Naidoo teaches asphalt composition, consisting: “wax component” [0029]; “Base Asphalt” [Table 1; P14]; “GTR modified asphalt” [0143] match the claimed composition.
Naidoo teaches “GTR modified asphalt” [0143] and the concentration of “10% GTR” [0165] lies in the claimed range.
Naido does not explicitly teach the wax formation, however, Dimondo teaches wax formulation via depolymerization, as of: “the generated depolymerization product material includes waxes” [0085] and “the polymeric feed in sorted/selected to include polypropylene material; PET” [0039]; “recycled plastics” [0040], matches the claimed polymers, and the “waxes, including those with melt point 110-130°C.” [0056] lies in the claimed range.
Naidoo and Dimondo are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the functional asphalt composition development via selection of recycled additive. 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 teachings of Dimondo, i.e. the specified wax formation process into the asphalt composition of Naido, because doing so would further lead to the desired property of “This leads to a more homogenous product with improved high temperature thermal and structural properties.” [0041].
Secondly, Dimondo teaches “The addition of wax reduces mixing time from 10.5 hours to 8 hours and the viscosity of asphalt mixture is reduced.” [0114], hence matches the “the addition of the wax changes the physical characteristics of the asphalt formulations including, but not limited to: lowering the formulation viscosity” [Instant App. P2; 0029]; “In general, addition of waxes will lower viscosities at formulating temperatures.” [Instant App. P3; 0044].
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 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
/PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767