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 Objections Claim s 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 11 , in line 2, “resent” should be deleted as it appears to be a typo. Regarding claim 13 , in line 5, “linseed oil” is repeated and should be deleted; and in line 3, there should not be a comma between mustard and oil. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-15 and 17- 20 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. Regarding claim s 1 , 5, 17, and 20 , at the end of each of these claims , the claim recites that the bitumen composition comprising the claimed antistripping agent has a tensile strength of at least 80%. However, the use of percentage in the ratio is unclear as most ratios do not include any type of unit. Moreover, in ¶98 of the instant PG-PUB, no units are provided for the ratio. For the purpose of further examination, this property will be treated as simply being “at least 80,” which is in line with the instant specification. Regarding claim 2 , the abbreviation "e.g.," which means “for example,” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the abbreviation is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of further examination, the limitation which follows will be interpreted as being part of the claim because the compound is repeated further into the claim. However, “e.g., bis(hexamethylene(triamine))” should be deleted based on the above reasoning. Regarding claim 11 , this claim is unclear as to whether or not both of the first triamine compound and the second amine compound are included in the composition, or if only one is included and in the claimed amount. Claim 11 depends from claim 1 which requires only one of the first triamine compound and the second amine compound to be present within the composition. While the claim uses open claim language which allows for the presence of both compounds, the claim does not recite in any way that the two compounds could or should be used together. Therefore, claim 11 is unclear as to what is required of the composition. For the purpose of further examination, claim 11 will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in that only one of the first triamine compound or the second amine compound be present within the antistripping composition and in an amount of 10% to 80% by weight. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first triamine" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted to be the first triamine compound as referenced in claim 1. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second amine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted to be the second amine compound as referenced in claim 1 Regarding claim 13 , in line 4, “biodiesel” is included in parentheses. It is unclear if this limitation is actually part of the claim or not. For the purpose of further examination, the limitation of “biodiesel” will be interpreted as not being part of the claim. Regarding claims 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 , these claims depend from a rejected claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also rejected. 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 1-4, 6-10, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Strickland et al. (US 2014/0147205). Regarding claim s 1 -4, 9, 17, and 18 , Strickland et al. teaches bituminous and asphalt compositions that comprise an anti-stripping agent comprising bis ( hexamethylene ) triamine (a first triamine compound ; structure of claim 3 wherein x and y are 6 and R is hydrogen ) (¶37) . A nitrile compound is not required to be present in the anti-stripping agent. The antistrip additive is suitably incorporated at between 0.1 and 3 wt % based upon the weight of the bituminous composition (¶37) . Strickland et al. does not explicitly teach that when the bis ( hexamethylene ) triamine is used a bitumen composition, that the composition demonstrates 50% or more retained coating and a tensile strength ratio of at least 80. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, t he original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount s . Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. , a bitumen composition that demonstrates 50% or more retained coating and a tensile strength ratio of at least 80, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients. Regarding claims 6-8 , these claims further define an optional component of claim 1 and therefore are not required. Regarding claim 10 , Strickland et al. does not require the presence of tricyanohexane in the antistripping composition/agent. Regarding claim 19 , Strickland et al. teaches adding the bis ( hexamethylene ) triamine , i.e., the antistripping composition, to a bitumen composition (¶37) and that will produce a treated bitumen composition. Strickland et al. does not explicitly teach that upon aging for 40 days, that the treated bitumen composition demonstrates a BBR stiffness less than 247 MPa. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, t he original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount s . Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. , a bitumen composition that demonstrates a BBR stiffness less than 247 MPa after aging for 40 days , would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Strickland et al. (US 2014/0147205). Regarding claim 5 , Strickland et al. teaches bituminous and asphalt compositions that comprise an anti-stripping agent comprising bis ( hexamethylene ) triamine (an alkane triamine) (¶37) . The instant specification defines an alkane triamine as a species having the formula of C x H 2x+5 N 3 , wherein x is 6 to 20 (¶54 of instant PG-PUB). The formula for bis ( hexamethylene ) triamine is C 12 H 29 N 3 , which meets the provided definition. A nitrile compound is not required to be present in the anti-stripping agent. Strickland et al. does not explicitly teach that when the bis ( hexamethylene ) triamine is used a bitumen composition, that the composition demonstrates 50% or more retained coating and a tensile strength ratio of at least 80. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, t he original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount s . Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. , a bitumen composition that demonstrates 50% or more retained coating and a tensile strength ratio of at least 80, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Strickland et al. (US 2014/0147205). Regarding claim 20 , Strickland et al. teaches bituminous and asphalt compositions that comprise an anti-stripping agent comprising bis ( hexamethylene ) triamine (BHMT) (¶37) . A nitrile compound is not required to be present in the anti-stripping agent. The antistrip additive is suitably incorporated at between 0.1 and 3 wt % based upon the weight of the bituminous composition (¶37) . Strickland et al. does not explicitly teach that when the bis ( hexamethylene ) triamine is used a bitumen composition, that the composition demonstrates 50% or more retained coating and a tensile strength ratio of at least 80. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, t he original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount s . Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. , a bitumen composition that demonstrates 50% or more retained coating and a tensile strength ratio of at least 80, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland et al. (US 2014/0147205), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chai et al. (US 2022/0112129). Regarding claim 11 , Strickland et al. teaches the antistripping composition/agent of claim 1. Strickland et al. does not teach that the first triamine compound is present in an amount ranging from 10% to 80% by weight. However, Chai et al. teaches an antistripping composition which comprises from 60% to 99% by weight of a triamine component (¶26) that can be BHMT (¶23). Strickland et al. and Chai et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of antistripping additives for bitumen compositions. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use from 60% to 99% by weight of the triamine compound, as taught by Chai et al., in the antistripping composition/agent, as taught by Strickland et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to provide adequate antistripping properties while still allowing for the presence of other synergistic additives. Regarding claims 12-15 , Strickland et al. teaches the antistripping composition/agent of claim 1. Strickland et al. does not teach that the antistripping composition comprises an organic additive such as a specific oil, a specific ester, or a specific alcohol. However, Chai et al. teaches an antistripping composition comprising BHMT (¶13, 23) which also comprises an organic additive (¶44). The organic additive may be a vegetable oil such as canola oil, castor oil, coconut oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, distilled tall oil, flax seed oil, jetropa oil, linseed oil, mustard oil, olive oil, palm oil, peanut oil, rapeseed oil, safflower oil, sesame oil, sunflower oil, soybean oil, soy oil, castor oil, tung oil, tigernut oil, and combinations thereof (¶45) . The organic additive may comprise an ester of the formula wherein a and b are independently from 0 to 4 (¶47). The organic additive may also be an alcohol such as ethanol, propanol, alkylene glycol, corresponding esters thereof, or combinations thereof (¶51). At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add an organic filler such as one named above, as taught by Chai et al., to the antistripping composition/agent, as taught by Strickland et al., and would have been motivated to so do improve the ability of the antistripping composition to reduce or eliminate the moisture susceptibility of a bituminous aggregate mixture ; or to lower the melting point of the antistripping composition ensuring that the antistripping composition remains in a liquid state which provides greater thermal stability (¶44) . Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland et al. (US 2014/0147205) in view of Chai et al. (US 2022/0112129). Regarding claim 16 , Strickland et al. teaches bituminous and asphalt compositions that comprise an anti-stripping agent comprising bis ( hexamethylene ) triamine (BHMT) (¶37) . A nitrile compound is not required to be present in the anti-stripping agent. Further, the instant specification defines an alkane triamine as a species having the formula of C x H 2x+5 N 3 , wherein x is 6 to 20 (¶54 of instant PG-PUB). The formula for bis ( hexamethylene ) triamine is C 12 H 29 N 3 , which meets the provided definition. Therefore, a composition comprising from 10% to 80% by weight of BHMT meets the limitations regarding the first triamine and the second amine compound. Strickland et al. does not teach that the first triamine compound is present in an amount ranging from 10% to 80% by weight. However, Chai et al. teaches an antistripping composition which comprises from 60% to 99% by weight of a triamine component (¶26) that can be BHMT (¶23). Strickland et al. and Chai et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of antistripping additives for bitumen compositions. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use from 60% to 99% by weight of the triamine compound, as taught by Chai et al., in the antistripping composition/agent, as taught by Strickland et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to provide adequate antistripping properties while still allowing for the presence of other synergistic additives. Strickland et al. does not teach that the antistripping composition/agent comprises from, 2% to 20% by weight of an organic additive comprising ethanol, propanol, an alkylene glycol, corresponding esters thereof, or combinations thereof. However, Chai et al. teaches an antistripping composition comprising BHMT (¶13, 23) which also comprises from 2 % to 20% by weight (¶53) of an organic additive (¶44). The organic additive may be an alcohol such as ethanol, propanol, alkylene glycol, corresponding esters thereof, or combinations thereof (¶51). At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add an organic filler such as one named above, as taught by Chai et al., to the antistripping composition/agent, as taught by Strickland et al., and would have been motivated to so do improve the ability of the antistripping composition to reduce or eliminate the moisture susceptibility of a bituminous aggregate mixture ; or to lower the melting point of the antistripping composition ensuring that the antistripping composition remains in a liquid state which provides greater thermal stability (¶44) . Co rrespondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3303 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, EST . 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 Mark Eashoo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1197 . 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. /ANGELA C SCOTT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767