DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-24 are pending, of which claims 15-24 have been withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/24/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim uses a comma rather than a period in the “0.5 wt%” limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3403989 (“Blake”).
Regarding claim 1, Blake teaches an asphaltene binder material (see e.g. col. 1, lines 29-36). The binder includes a blend of a coal tar pitch binder, which would be produced from a coal tar distillation residue, and an asphalt binder that is obtained from a petroleum distillation residue (see e.g. col. 2, line 61 to col. 3, line 3; and col. 1, lines 18-20). The binder comprises between 5 : 95 to 95 : 5 ratio of asphalt binder to coal tar pitch binder, which includes the claimed range (see e.g. col. 3, lines 3-7). The product has up to 85% by mass asphaltenes, which overlaps with the claimed range (see e.g. col. 2, lines 46-49).
Regarding claim 4, Blake teaches that the materials have a resin content of 2-4%, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. col. 3, lines 39-55).
Regarding claim 10, Blake teaches that the product is a blend of petroleum-derived distillation residue and coal tar-derived distillation residue (see e.g. col. 2, line 61 to col. 3, line 3; and col. 1, lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 14, the petroleum derived material has greater than 80% asphaltenes, less than 40% resins, and does not have an appreciable amount of saturates (see e.g. col. 3, lines 39-44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-9, and 11-13 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.
Each of claims 2-3, 5-9, and 11-13 recite specific values for parameters not disclosed in Blake. Given the differences in the processes and materials used in Blake and the instant application, the product of Blake does not necessarily have the recited coke yield, softening point, viscosity recovery, coke yield, or flashpoint.
US 5746906 (“McHenry”) teaches a coal tar pitch/petroleum pitch blend (see e.g. col. 1, lines 11-16). The blend of McHenry has a softening point at 110-112 °C, which is within the claimed range of claims 9 and 11 (see e.g. Tables VI and VII). The resin content can be as low as 10%, which is within the claimed range of claim 4 (see e.g. Tables VI and VII). The B(a)P concentration is under 8,500 ppm as recited in claim 5 (see e.g. col. 3, lines 4-5). However, McHenry is silent as to the concentration of asphaltenes present in the blend. As such, although the blend of McHenry meets some of the additional limitations recited in dependent claims, it is not clear that the blend of McHenry meets the limitations of claim 1. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion in either McHenry or Blake that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to use the blend of Blake and include the physical parameters of the blend of McHenry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights