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
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wang (CN 103509356). Wang shows that it is known to have a recycled product (0001, 0010, 0017).
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) 1-2, 5-7, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seguin et al. (U.S. Patent 4,837,252), in view of Martin (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0249049). Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Seguin et al., hereafter “Seguin,” show that it is known to carry out a preparation method for a modified polyethylene (Abstract; Column 2, lines 42-49), comprising obtaining a polyethylene powder (Column 1, lines 44-47; Column 2, lines 46-47), and mixing natural liquid asphalt and the polyethylene powder in an internal mixer (Column 3, lines 44-56). Seguin does not specifically disclose his polyethylene as crosslinked. Martin describes a preparation method wherein crosslinked polyethylene is combined with asphalt (0013, 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Martin’s crosslinked polyethylene as that in Seguin’s method because both crosslinked and linear polyethylene have art recognized suitability in the field if modified asphalt compositions (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 2, Seguin shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein obtaining the polyethylene powder comprises adding the polyethylene powder into a millstone-type solid phase force chemical reactor for milling (Column 3, lines 8-11) and collecting the polyethylene powder after milling (Column 3, lines 38-43: pellet ~ powder).
Regarding Claims 5-7, Seguin shows the method of claim 1 above, including that process conditions and material properties are known to be customizable/variable (Column 2, lines 50-61; Colum 4, lines 3-15; Table 3; Example 2), however he does not specifically describe the claimed conditions and material properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any appropriate process conditions or materials, such as those claimed, in order to efficiently carry out the process to create an article having the desired physical/chemical characteristics, and because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 10, Seguin shows a modified polyethylene (Abstract; Column 2, lines 42-49) prepared by mixing liquid asphalt and polyethylene powder as raw materials (Examples 1, 2). Seguin does not specifically disclose his polyethylene as crosslinked. Martin describes a preparation method wherein crosslinked polyethylene is combined with asphalt (0013, 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Martin’s crosslinked polyethylene as that in Seguin’s method because both crosslinked and linear polyethylene have art recognized suitability in the field if modified asphalt compositions (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 11, Seguin shows the method of claim 1 above, including that composition ingredient amounts are known to be customizable/variable (Example 2), however he does not specifically describe the claimed ratios. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any appropriate composition amounts, such as those claimed, in order to create an article having the desired physical/chemical characteristics, and because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seguin and Martin, further in view of Wang.
Regarding Claims 8-9, and 13-14, Seguin shows the method of claims 1 and 2 above, but he does not show using a waste polyethylene powder. Wang discloses a method of preparing a modified polyethylene comprising preparing a waste polyethylene powder by pretreating a waste polyethylene material by washing and smashing the polyethylene material (0054: particle size is treated as implicit by the disclosure of powder), and performing thermoplastic processing on the composite granular material to prepare a recycled product (0064). It would have been obvious to use Wang’s waste polyethylene in Seguin’s preparation method in order to reuse existing polymer product and avoid creating new product.
Regarding Claim 15, Seguin shows the method of claim 13 above, including one wherein the thermoplastic processing comprises extruded profile processing (Column 3, lines 33-41).
Regarding Claim 16, Seguin shows the method of claim 13 above, including that process conditions are known to be customizable/variable (Colum 3, lines 33-41; Column 4, lines 3-15; Column 5, lines 1-5; Table 3; Example 2), however he does not specifically describe the claimed conditions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any appropriate process conditions, such as those claimed, in order to efficiently carry out the process to create an article having the desired physical/chemical characteristics, and because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights