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 .
DETAILED ACTION
SPECIFICATION OBJECTION
There are several versions of the specification which is confusing. A clean complete substituted specification is needed.
The specification recites “6. Presentation of the figures”, and the examiner suggests “6. Brief Descriptions of the Drawings” instead which is used in US practice.
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 6-15 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.
The recited waste glass aggregates, waste plastic material and mineral aggregates of claim 6 would be fillers and thus the recited separate filler of claim 6 is confusing absent further limitations since the recited 0-5% of the filler would be narrower than the recited amount of aggregates. Other claims depend from the indefinite claim 6 would be also indefinite.
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.
Claims 6-9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2448088 A (Oct. 1, 2008) in view of Fishback et al. (US 5,702,199).
GB teaches an asphalt composition using recycled waste such as glass aggregates and method of manufacture in abstract. GB teaches a composition comprising 16.4 wt.% of shredded bitumen carper tiles, 1.6 wt.% of bitumen binders and 82 wt.% of glass in Table 1 of page 13. GB teaches that the shredded bitumen carper tiles is estimated comprise about 20% bitumen in 28-29 of page 13 and the 16.4 wt.% of shredded bitumen carper tiles would comprise about 3.28 wt.% of bitumen. Thus, the example of the Table 1 would comprise a total of about 3.88 wt.%.
The instant claim 1 further recites 4-10% of bitumen based on the total weight of the asphalt concrete over GB.
GB teaches utilization of 0.1-6 wt.% of the binder material such as bitumen in lines 9-12 of page 8. Thus, utilization of up to 6 wt.% of the bitumen in the example of the Table 1 would have been obvious.
Regarding the recited glass aggregates in an amount of 15-70 wt.% of claim 1. GB teaches 50-99.9 wt.% of recycled aggregate material in lines 1-9 of page 9. Thus, utilization of 15-70 wt.% of the recited glass aggregates in the example of the Table 1 would have been obvious.
See In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123.
The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to the applicant to show that his invention would have not been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 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). In re Woodruff, 919F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
The instant claim 1 further recites 5-40% of plastic material based on the total weight of the asphalt concrete over GB.
GB teaches employing additional waste material such as polymeric-based end of life vehicle (ELV) waste and thus utilization of polymeric waste material in the example of Table 1 would have been obvious.
Utilization of the instant amount of the recycled plastic waste materials in asphalt composition is known in the art.
Fishback et al. teach an asphalt concrete or paving material comprising 5 to 20% or more of granular recycled plastic, which supplements or replace rock aggregates components of the mixture in abstract. Fishback et al. teach various waste plastics such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene and PVC in lines 1-9 of col. 2. Fishback et al. teach that the particles of plastic would strengthen the paving material by adding a slightly flexible interlocking aggregate component that bonds with the asphalt binder in lines 52-58 of col. 6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize 5-20 wt.% or more of the granular recycled plastic taught by Fishback et al. in the example of the Table 1 taught by GB with a reduced amount of recycled aggregate material since GB teaches further utilization of recycled wastes from polymeric-based end of life vehicle (ELV) waste and since an advantage of utilizing the granular recycled plastic (i.e., strengthen the paving material by adding a slightly flexible interlocking aggregate component) is known as taught by Fishback et al. absent showing otherwise.
Regarding claim 7, the 5-20 wt.% or more of the granular recycled plastic taught by Fishback et al. would encompass the recited 25% of the waste plastic material. An addition of the waste plastic material would decrease 82 wt.% of glass in Table 1 of GB. GB teaches utilization of 0.1-6 wt.% of the binder material such as bitumen in lines 9-12 of page 8.
Regarding claim 8, GB teaches 50-99.9 wt.% of the recycled glass aggregate material in lines 1-9 of page 9 and thus replacing some of the recycled aggregate material of GB with the 10-20 wt.% or more of the granular recycled plastic taught by Fishback et al. would make the recited amounts of the recycled glass aggregate material and waste (i.e., recycled) plastic material.
Regarding the recited granularity of 0/4 mm of the waste glass aggregates of claim 9, GB teaches utilization of a least two different ranges of dimensions in lines 28-35 of page 4. GB further teaches sieve sizes of 0.063 mm, 1.0 mm, 2.0 mm, 4.0 mm, 6.3 mm, 10 mm and 14 mm in lines 7-17 of page5. Thus, a mixture of glass aggregates comprising the sieve sizes of 0.063 mm, 1.0 mm, 2.0 mm and 4.0 mm would have been obvious.
Regarding the recited granularity of 0/10 mm of the waste plastic material of claim 9, Fishback et al. teach that the waste plastic material preferably has a size of ¼ inch (6.35 mm) to 3/8 inch (9.525 mm) in abstract.
Regarding claim 11, Fishback et al. teach various waste plastics such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene and PVC in lines 1-9 of col. 2.
Regarding claim 12, GB teaches an asphalt composition using recycled waste such as glass aggregates and an additional waste material such as polymeric-based end of life vehicle (ELV) waste.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Fishback et al. teach that an asphalt concrete is useful for all layers below the surface layer in abstract with would make claims 14 and 15 obvious.
ALLOWABLE CLAIMS
Claims 10 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since the recited amounts of the mixture of claim 10 and heating duration for the recited time are not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
PCT written opinion cites a reformed asphalt mixture of KR 2021 0019457 A (Feb. 22, 2021), but the KR is directed to electrical structure instead.
PCT written opinion cites an asphalt mixture of CN 106590527 A (April 26, 2017)), but the CN is silent as to bitumen.
PCT written opinion cites an asphalt composition of CN 107032737 A (August 11, 2017)), but the CN is silent as to bitumen.
PCT written opinion cites an asphalt composition taught in para. [0099-0102} of KR 2020-0138700 (Dec. 10, 2020)), but the KR is directed to a lens assembly instead.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights