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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watkins (GB2051846).
Regarding claim 1, Watkins teaches a method comprising: identifying a crack or joint in an asphalt cement or concrete cement (page 1, Line 14), wherein said crack or joint comprises a bottom and two sides (the joint inherently has a bottom); and applying an adhesion promoter (page 1, line 51) to the sides of the crack or joint (page 1, lines 48-61, claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Watkins teaches filling the crack or joint with a sealing material (page 1, Lines 57-58).
Regarding claim 4, Watkins teaches the adhesion promoter comprises a vinyl polymer (page 1, lines 50-54).
Regarding claim 8, Watkins teaches the adhesion promoter comprises an aqueous composition (water; page 2, line 8).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denso (EP3081615)
Regarding claim 1, Denso teaches a method comprising: identifying a crack or joint in an asphalt cement or concrete cement (page 1, Line 14), wherein said crack or joint comprises a bottom and two sides; and applying an adhesion promoter (page 1, line 51) to the sides of the crack or joint (page 1, lines 48-61, claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Denso teaches the sealing material (34) comprises a bituminous material (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Denso teaches the sealing material (34) comprises a bituminous binder (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 7, Denso teaches the sealing material further comprises at least one component selected from an asphalt material, an elastomeric polymer, or a wax (paragraph [0062, 0067]).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins (GB2051846).
Regarding claim 5, Watkins teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the vinyl polymer is selected from polyvinyl alcohol and polyvinyl acetate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the vinyl polymer of Watkins a polyvinyl alcohol or polyvinyl acetate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Watkins teaches the adhesion promoter comprises a vinyl polymer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the adhesion promotor of Watkins a vinyl polymer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 10, Watkins teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the vinyl polymer comprises about 0.1 to about 10 wt. % of the composition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the vinyl polymer about 0.1 to about 10 wt. % of the composition, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, Watkins teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the vinyl polymer comprises about 0.5 to about 5 wt. % of the composition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the vinyl polymer about 0.5 to about 5 wt. % of the composition, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, Watkins teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the composition is applied at a rate of about 0.001 to about 0.20 gallons/yard2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the composition of Watkins at a rate of about 0.001 to about 0.20 gallons/yard2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Watkins teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the vinyl polymer is modified with boric acid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the vinyl polymer of Wakins modified with boric acid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Terry teaches a method for sealing a crack with a bituminous sealant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 October 28, 2025