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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12/23/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are amended, claims 4 and 14-16 are or were previously canceled, and no claims are newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 5-13 are pending and considered in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bitumen-containing composition" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Notably, the preamble uses “bituminous-containing composition”.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-13 depend from or otherwise require the features of claim 1.
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.
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.
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 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez Leon et al. (U.S. 2014/0230693) and Williams et al. (U.S. 2018/0057686).
Regarding claim 1, Gonzalez Leon et al. (hereinafter “Gonzalez Leon”) teaches an asphalt mix composition and process comprising at least one recycled bituminous product (meeting claimed “at least one recycled manufactured product”) in an amount from about 5 wt% to about 99.5 wt% (Paragraph 0053; overlapping claimed range of 30 to 70%) and at least one surfactant (meeting claimed “at least one additive”).
Specifically, the surfactant (meeting claimed ‘additive’) is described as Formula 1 (Paragraphs 0062-0082) and/or Formula 2 (Paragraphs 0083-0100) as claimed by Applicant.
Gonzalez Leon further teaches the act of combining the components (Paragraph 0125 and 0126).
Gonzalez Leon is silent to the inclusion of at least one epoxidized oil.
Williams et al. (hereinafter “Williams”) teaches a composition (Paragraph 0242) comprising a neat PG58-28 (i.e. ‘at least one bitumen additive’), a soybean-derived material, described at Paragraph 0182 as “a generic term as a soybean-derived additive and included epoxidized benzyl soyate”, (i.e., at least one epoxidized oil), and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) (i.e. a recycled bituminous product).
Williams teaches that the epoxidized soybean derived material is “effective at low dosages” which provides “a very economically viable alternative” to currently available rejuvenators that require high dosages (Paragraph 0045). Williams also teaches that the epoxidized soybean oil would rejuvenate and/or soften asphalt both physically and chemically (Paragraph 0046).
The person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Gonzalez Leon’s composition with the epoxidized soybean oil of Williams because Gonzalez Leon is also directed to the problem of finding a new alternative to known rejuvenating oils and achieving mixes that have better mechanical properties (Abstract). Particularly, Gonzalez Leon believes that the binder of the RAP is softened (Paragraph 0013). As both references would advantageously soften the recycled bituminous material, it would be obvious to combine William’s epoxidized soybean material to further condition the recycled bituminous material.
Thus, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Gonzalez Leon and Williams so as to achieve better recycled asphalt products that are economically viable, embody improved sustainability by limiting unreclaimable road and asphalt waste, and achieve improved mechanical performance.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Gonzalez Leon and Williams teach the composition as applied to claim 1 above and Williams further teaches the epoxidized benzyl soyate that meets claim 2 and, further, Paragraph 120 describes the epoxidized compounds of formula (I) can be used to form epoxidized monoesters (i.e. meeting epoxidized fatty acid monoesters). Additionally, Williams identifies these compounds as “soybean-derived” which would meet the features of claim 3 requiring the epoxidized oil to be “obtained from…. soybean oil”.
Regarding claim 5, Gonzalez Leon and Williams teach the composition as applied to claim 1 above and Gonzalez Leon further teaches that the additive is of formula (1) with the functional groups as claimed (Paragraphs 0063-0069).
Regarding claim 6, Gonzalez Leon and Williams teach the composition as applied to claim 1 above and Gonzalez Leon further teaches that the additive is of formula (2) with the functional groups as claimed (Paragraph 0093).
Regarding claim 7, Gonzalez Leon and Williams teach the composition as applied to claim 1 above and Gonzalez Leon further teaches that the additive is included from 0.05 to 10 wt% (Paragraph 0052) which lies within the claimed range of 0.01% to 10%.
Regarding claim 8, Gonzalez Leon and Williams teach the composition as applied to claim 1 above and Williams further teaches that the soybean-derived additive having epoxidized benzyl soyate (hereinafter referred to as “EBS” by Examiner) is in a dosage of 2% (Paragraph 0242) which meets the claimed range of between 0.01% and 10% by weight.
Regarding claim 9, Gonzalez Leon and Williams teach the composition as applied to claim 1 above and Gonzalez Leon teaches that virgin bitumen can be added to the mix (Paragraph 0046) and Williams uses a neat PG58-28 asphalt as well (Paragraph 0242). The use of any virgin or neat asphalt source would meet the claimed feature requiring a non-recycled bitumen.
Regarding claim 10, Gonzalez Leon and Williams teach the composition as applied to claim 1 above and Gonzalez Leon teaches that an emulsion may be used (Paragraphs 0046 and/or 0051) and Williams teaches at Paragraph 0171 that the composition can be made into an emulsion.
Regarding claim 11, Gonzalez Leon and Williams teach the composition as applied to claim 1 above and Gonzalez Leon teaches that the manufactured product comprises recycled bitumen in an amount from about 5 wt% to about 99.5 wt% (Paragraph 0053; overlapping claimed range of 40 to 60%).
Regarding claim 12, Gonzalez Leon and Williams teach the composition as applied to claim 1 above and Gonzalez Leon further teaches the act of combining the components (Paragraph 0125 and 0126) such that the claimed process comprising adding the composition of claim 1 as a component of the mix is met.
Regarding claim 13, Gonzalez Leon and Williams teach the composition as applied to claim 1 above and Gonzalez Leon teaches that the composition is intended to be mixed with mineral aggregates (Paragraphs 0002 and 0004) while Williams also teaches mixing the asphalt product with mineral aggregate (Paragraph 0044). Thus, by mixing the composition with mineral aggregates a mix, as claimed, will result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, filed 12/23/2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA M MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-8502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
ALEXANDRA M MOORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1738
/ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738