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. 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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the layered material as claimed in claim 45 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Applicant’s drawings currently include Figures 1-3, however they only show test set-up and results of a test, none of which show the structure of Applicant’s claimed invention. Applicant’s Figures 1-3 are colored drawings or photographs which do not show detail well and do not reproduce well. Drawings must be only black lines on a white background. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claim s 1-1 2 , 24-25, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews et al. US 7,297,204 B2 in view of Cross et al., US 11,613,655 B2 . Regarding claim 1, Crew s teaches a layered material comprising: a substrate (existing, damaged pavement surface; column 9 lines 45-52), wherein the substrate has a surface with voids (cracks of the damaged pavement, and/ or naturally-occurring voids which are inherent in asphalt or concrete pavements) ; a void-filling asphalt layer (thin lift overlay of bituminous composition; column 9 lines 45-52) on the surface of the substrate that penetrates at least some of the surface voids (the composition would penetrate at least some of the surface voids since the composition includes a water-in-oil bitumen dispersion and Crews discusses viscosity which means the dispersion is flowable; column 4 lines 34-37), wherein said asphalt layer comprises an asphalt and a surfactant (the bituminous composition includes mixing bitumen and aggregate, column 5 lines 19-37; asphalt is bitumen mixed with aggregate ; surfactant, column 6 lines 20-26 ) . While the resulting combination fails to disclose a thermoplastic layer positioned on top of the void-filling asphalt layer, Cross teaches thermoplastic compositions useful for roadway markings that can be applied to asphalt or concrete roads (Abstract and column 17 lines 26-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crew’s layered material to include a thermoplastic layer positioned on top of the void-filling asphalt layer if the void-filling asphalt layer (Crew’s thin lift overlay) covered some existing road markings and the road markings need to be replaced since Cross discloses that conventionally thermoplastics are used to as roadway markings (column 1 lines 19-22). Regarding claim 2, the resulting combination includes the substrate comprising a roadway. Regarding claim 3, while Crews only discloses “pavement surface” but fails to explicitly disclose an asphalt pavement, since Cross discloses that the composition is to be applied to a roadway and discloses that typical examples of substrates include asphalt (column 17 lines 26-37), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the substrate comprise an asphalt pavement in view of Cross’s further disclosure since asphalt pavements are common. Regarding claim 4, while the resulting combination fails to explicitly include a hot mix asphalt, Crews discloses in the Background of the Invention that hot mix paving compositions are known in the art (column 1 lines 21-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the asphalt pavement comprise a hot mix asphalt since that is known in the art. Regarding claim 5, while Crews only discloses “pavement surface” but fails to explicitly disclose a concrete pavement, since Cross discloses that the composition is to be applied to a roadway and discloses that typical examples of substrates include concrete (column 17 lines 26-37) , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the substrate comprise a concrete pavement in view of Cross’s further disclosure since concrete pavements are common. Regarding claim 6, since Crews discloses that the surfactant can include resinous polymers or lignous polymers (column 6 lines 57-58), the resulting combination makes obvious that the surfactant comprises a polymeric surfactant. Regarding claim 7, since Crews discloses that suitable surfactants include nonionic types (column 6 lines 24-25), the resulting combination makes obvious that the surfactant comprises a non-ionic surfactant. Regarding claim 8, while Crews fails to explicitly disclose that the surfactant comprises an alkoxylated alcohol, alkoxylated alcohols are non-ionic surfactants produced by reacting fatty alcohols with an ethylene oxide or propylene oxide. Crews further discloses (column 7 lines 62-66) that nonionic surfactants that are suitable include polyethylene oxide and polypropylene oxide derivatives of branched cyclic alkanols (which is an alcohol). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the surfactant comprise an alkoxylated alcohol in view of the suggestions that Crews discloses as suitable surfactants. Regarding claim 9, while Crews fails to explicitly disclose that the surfactant comprises an ethoxy lated alcohol, ethoxylated alcohols are non-ionic surfactants produced by reacting fatty alcohols with an ethylene oxide . Crews further discloses (column 7 lines 62-66) that nonionic surfactants that are suitable include polyethylene oxide and polypropylene oxide derivatives of branched cyclic alkanols (which is an alcohol). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the surfactant comprise an ethoxylated alcohol in view of the suggestions that Crews discloses as suitable surfactants. Regarding claim 10, the resulting combination includes the void-filling asphalt layer comprising a surfactant. Crews further discloses that cationic surfactants are suitable as a surfactant and that a cationic emulsifier is one selected from the group of suggested monoamines (column 7 lines 48-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the void-filling asphalt layer further comprise a primary emulsifier if a cationic surfactant was used in view of Crews’s further disclosure as discussed above. Regarding claim 11, since the resulting combination from claim 10 includes a group of suggested monoamines, the resulting combination makes obvious that the primary emulsifier comprises at least one of an amine. Regarding claim 12, since Crews group of suggested monoamines includes a saturated C-12 to C-24 alkyl monoamines (column 7 lines 50-51), the resulting combination makes obvious that the primary emulsifier comprises an alkyl amine. Regarding claim 24, the resulting combination includes the thermoplastic layer comprising a roadway marking. Regarding claim 25, Cross discloses that the thermoplastic can include an alkyd resin (column 9 lines 4-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermoplastic material of the resulting combination to comprise an alkyd thermoplastic in view of Cross’s further disclosure as discussed above. Regarding claim 27, the claim limitation pertains to a test result. While the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose this test result, since the elements of the resulting combination meet the elements of claim 1, it would appear that the resulting combination would yield this test result. Regarding claim 31, the claim limitation pertains to a test result. While the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose this test result, since the elements of the resulting combination meet the elements of claim 1, it would appear that the resulting combination would yield this test result. Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews in view of Cross as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Barros, US 2017/0191233 A1. Regarding claim 45, while the resulting combination discloses the substrate being a roadway but fails to disclose that the substrate comprises a rumble strip milled into the surface, Barros teaches a system for applying road markings to roadways and discloses a milling tool milling the original roadway surface to create a milled surface followed by a marking module vehicle to apply roadway markings on the milled surface based on the original roadway markings (Abstract). Since the resulting combination includes applying thermoplastic material over a void-filling asphalt layer over an existing roadway, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the roadway (substrate) comprising a milled surface in view of Barros’s disclosure of applying roadway markings to the milled surface when temporary roadway markings are needed (Barros’s claim 3). A milled surface formed with a teethed tool which is commonly used would yield a surface with rows of raised material alternating with indents, which would be a rumble strip. Additionally, Barros discusses that road surface markings can be used to indicate a surface for awakening a sleeping driver when installed in the shoulders ( [0004] which would be a permanent rumble strip) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate of the resulting combination to comprise a rumble strip milled into the surface in view of Barros’s disclosure when a rumble strip is needed . Regarding claim 46, the resulting combination from claim 45 yields the void-filling asphalt layer being positioned on the rumble strip since claim 1 includes the void-filling asphalt layer being positioned on the substrate. Claims 1, 13-14, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102325842 B (hereinafter will be referred to as “CN ‘842”) in view of Cross et al., US 11,613,655 B2. Regarding claim 1, CN ‘842 teaches a layered material comprising: a substrate ( damaged existing pavement surface; [0135] ), wherein the substrate has a surface with voids ( cracks of the damaged pavement, and/or naturally-occurring voids which are inherent in asphalt or concrete pavements ); and a void-filling asphalt layer on the surface of the substrate that penetrates at least some of the surface voids, wherein said asphalt layer comprises an asphalt and a surfactant ([0012]-[0019] and surfactant as emulsifier additive [0118]; since the asphalt composition is viscous [0135] , it would flow and penetrate at least some of the surface voids) . While the resulting combination fails to disclose a thermoplastic layer positioned on top of the void-filling asphalt layer, Cross teaches thermoplastic compositions useful for roadway markings that can be applied to asphalt or concrete roads (Abstract and column 17 lines 26-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crew’s layered material to include a thermoplastic layer positioned on top of the void-filling asphalt layer if the void-filling asphalt layer (Crew’s thin lift overlay) covered some existing road markings and the road markings need to be replaced since Cross discloses that conventionally thermoplastics are used to as roadway markings (column 1 lines 19-22). Regarding claim 13, the resulting combination includes the void-filling asphalt layer being prepared by a process that includes the application of a void-filling asphalt emulsion to the substrate since the asphalt composition includes a high-concentration-emulsifier bitumen emulsion; since an emulsion naturally flows, it would be void-filling when applied to the substrate. Regarding claim 14, while the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose that the weight percent of the surfactant is about 0.1-3 weight percent based on the total weight of the void filling asphalt emulsion, CN ‘842 further discloses that the emulsifier additive (surfactant [0118]) is about 1-20 weight percent based on the weight of asphalt. The asphalt emulsion is part of the asphalt composition. Since it appears that the claimed range overlaps with the range as disclosed by CN ‘842, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) . Additionally, CN ‘842 further discloses that the amount of emulsifier additive may be selected based on target interface performance ([120]). "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), and such a modification merely constitutes the routine optimization of an acknowledged results effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize an acknowledged results effective variable based on the target interface performance of the emulsion in view of CN ‘842’s disclosure as discussed above. Regarding claim 34, the limitation claimed pertains to a product-by-process, which is not germane to an apparatus claim. Regarding claim 35, the limitation pertains to a specific test result. While the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose this test result, since the elements of the resulting combination meet the claimed elements, it would appear that the resulting combination would yield this test result. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Thompson et al., US 11,760,691 B2 also teaches thermoplastic markings on a roadway. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7819 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F generally 9:30-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Christopher Sebesta can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /KATHERINE J CHU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671 /CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671