DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on February 20, 2024. Claims 142-161 are pending, with claims 142,147 and 153 in independent claim form. 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of : the language of “The present disclosure relates to the” in line 1 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 11 2 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 142-161 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. Claims 142 in lines 6-7, recited the limitations “ a size-reduced fraction derived ” is indefinite because it is not clear what the word is intended to encompass since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the meets and bounds of the patent protection desired. Additionally, there is no criteria in the claim (or in the specification for that matter) for determining what the applicant considers to comprise “ a size-reduced fraction derived ”, since the purpose of the limitation ” fed into a kinetic pulverizer” is to reduce the size. Same goes for claims 147 and 153. Claims 142 in line 8, recited the limitations “ an oversized fraction derived ” is indefinite because there is no criteria in the claim (or in the specification for that matter) for determining what the applicant considers to be “an oversized fraction derived ”. Same goes for claims 147 and 153. Claim 145 in line 2, recited the limitations “the feedstock”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 148 in lines 6-7, recited the limitations “ source- separated ” is indefinite because it is not clear what the word “source” is intended to encompass since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the meets and bounds of the patent protection desired. Same goes for claim 156. Claim 157 in line 2, recited the limitations “ the ductile component ” and “ the frangible component ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Appropriate clarification is required. 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 142-160 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seder et al. US Publication (2013/0307172) hereinafter Seder in view of Csendes US Patent (5,695,130) hereinafter Csendes. Regarding claim 142, Seder discloses a process for treating asphalt shingles (see title) comprising: providing the asphalt shingles (RAS) which comprise a frangible asphalt (asphalt) component coupled to a ductile component (paper or fiberglass, see para.[0002] and [0017]); subjecting the asphalt shingles to a crushing stage (see fig.2) wherein the asphalt shingles are fed into a crusher/grinder (24) and subjected to crushing force within the crusher (24) to produce a pulverized material (mixed small sized particles) comprising a size-reduced fraction derived from the frangible asphalt component and an oversized fraction derived from the ductile component (see para.[0014], the finishing product is the reduction of material inserted which are pieces of asphalt shingle (i.e. resulting to pieces of asphalt shingle composition particles with different sizes)); withdrawing the pulverized material (mixed small sized particles) from the crusher (24, see fig.2); and subjecting the pulverized material ( mixed small sized particles ) to a separation stage (26 separation to remove metal) to produce a size-reduced stream comprising the frangible asphalt component and an oversized stream comprising the ductile component (see para.[0014], the finishing product is the reduction of material inserted which are pieces of asphalt shingle (i.e. resulting to pieces of asphalt shingle composition particles with different sizes)). Seder does not disclose the crusher to be a kinetic pulverizer creating vortices within and subjected the material to self-collisions. Seder and Cs e ndes disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. processing construction material). Cs e ndes , in a similar art, teaches a method to micronize construction material (see col.2 lines 5-15) to include the step of a kinetic pulverization stage with a crusher to be a kinetic pulverizer creating vortices within and subjected the material to self-collisions to produce a pulverized material (see col.16 lines 26-32 and 45-50). Cs e ndes teaches the use of the kinetic pulverizer to improve safety and energy efficiency (see col.1 lines 39-41 or col.2 lines 48-50). It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the kinetic pulverizer of Seder with the kinetic pulverizer of Csendes to be able to allow all the stages to be done with the same apparatus to increase efficiency, safety and lower maintenance and energy . Regarding claim 143, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 142, Seder further discloses wherein the ductile component comprises paper or fiberglass (see Para.[0017]). Regarding claim 144, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 142, Seder further discloses wherein the asphalt shingles further comprise an infrangible material (metal or nails) embedded in the frangible asphalt component (asphalt) and/or the ductile component (paper or fiberglass, see para.[0002], [0014] and [0017]). Regarding claim 145, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 142, Seder further discloses subjecting a C&D source material ( waste stream of asphalt, see para.[0002] ) to an upstream separation stage (asbestos separation see para.[0002] and [0012]) to produce at least one stream of the feedstock (the batch) comprising the asphalt shingles (RAS, see para.[0012]-[0013]). Regarding claim 146, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 142, Seder further discloses wherein the size-reduced stream comprising the frangible asphalt component is an asphalt product configured for use as a cement mixture additive, in the production of biofuels, as a hydrocarbon-based additive, in the production of asphalt, and/or in the production of shingles (see para.[0002]-[0004]). Regarding claim 147, Seder discloses a process for treating construction and/or demolition (C&D) debris (see para.[0002]) comprising: providing a C&D fines stream ( asphalt shingle of the waste stream of asphalt, see para.[0002],[0012]-[0013] ) comprising a frangible material (asphalt) and a ductile material (paper or fiberglass, see para.[0002] and [0017]); subjecting the C&D fines streams ((asphalt shingle of the waste stream of asphalt) to a crushing stage (see fig.2) wherein the C&D fines streams ((asphalt shingle of the waste stream of asphalt) are fed into a crusher/grinder (24) and subjected to crushing force within the crusher (24) to produce a pulverized material (mixed small sized particles) comprising a size-reduced fraction derived from the frangible material and an oversized fraction derived from the ductile material (see para.[0014], the finishing product is the reduction of material inserted which are pieces of asphalt shingle (i.e. resulting to pieces of asphalt shingle composition particles with different sizes)); withdrawing the pulverized material (mixed small sized particles) from the crusher (24, see fig.2); and subjecting the pulverized material (mixed small sized particles) to a separation stage (26 separation to remove metal) to produce a size-reduced stream and an oversized stream (see para.[0014], the finishing product is the reduction of material inserted which are pieces of asphalt shingle (i.e. resulting to pieces of asphalt shingle composition particles with different sizes)), wherein the C&D fines stream comprises asphalt shingles (asphalt shingle of the waste stream of asphalt, see para.[0002],[0012]-[0013]). Seder does not disclose the crusher to be a kinetic pulverizer creating vortices within and subjected the material to self-collisions. Seder and Csendes disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. processing construction material). Csendes , in a similar art, teaches a method to micronize construction material (see col.2 lines 5-15) to include the step of a kinetic pulverization stage with a crusher to be a kinetic pulverizer creating vortices within and subjected the material to self-collisions to produce a pulverized material (see col.16 lines 26-32 and 45-50). Csendes teaches the use of the kinetic pulverizer to improve safety and energy efficiency (see col.1 lines 39-41 or col.2 lines 48-50). It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the kinetic pulverizer of Seder with the kinetic pulverizer of Csendes to be able to allow all the stages to be done with the same apparatus to increase efficiency, safety and lower maintenance and energy . Regarding claim 148, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 147, Seder further discloses wherein the asphalt shingles is source-separated, segregated at a job site, and/or generated as waste during a manufacturing process (see para.[0003]). Regarding claim 149, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 147, Seder further discloses wherein the separation stage comprises screening using a single screen or two or more screens arranged in parallel or in series (see para.[0014], discloses a screen for metal). Regarding claim 150, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 147, Seder further discloses monitoring at least one parameter of ( remaining metal ): the C&D fines stream, the pulverized material, the oversized stream and/or the size-reduced stream; and adjusting the kinetic pulverization stage based on the at least one parameter (incorporation of remaining metal removal, see para.[0014]). Regarding claim 151, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 150, Seder further discloses wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one of: an infeed rate of the C&D fines stream, a moisture content of the C&D fines stream, size properties of the C&D fines stream, and a composition of the C&D fines stream (remaining metal, see para.[0014]). Regarding claim 152, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 150, Seder further discloses wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one of: size properties of the size-reduced fraction in the pulverized material, a composition of the pulverized material (remaining metal, see para.[0014]), a flow rate of the oversized stream, a flow rate of the size-reduced stream, a composition of the oversized stream, and a composition of the size-reduced stream. Regarding claim 153, Seder discloses a process for treating asphalt shingles (see para.[0002]) comprising: providing a feedstock (batch, see para.[0012]) comprising asphalt shingles (RAS) having a frangible material (asphalt) and a ductile material (paper or fiberglass, see para.[0002] and [0017]); subjecting the feedstock (asphalt shingle of the raw material) to a crushing stage (see fig.2) wherein the feedstock (asphalt shingle of the raw material) are fed into a crusher/grinder (24) and subjected to crushing force within the crusher (24) to produce a pulverized material (mixed small sized particles) comprising a size-reduced fraction derived from the frangible material and an oversized fraction derived from the ductile material (see para.[0014], the finishing product is the reduction of material inserted which are pieces of asphalt shingle (i.e. resulting to pieces of asphalt shingle composition particles with different sizes)); withdrawing the pulverized material (mixed small sized particles) from the crusher (24, see fig.2); and subjecting the pulverized material (mixed small sized particles) to a separation stage (26 separation to remove metal) to produce a size-reduced stream and an oversized stream (see para.[0014], the finishing product is the reduction of material inserted which are pieces of asphalt shingle (i.e. resulting to pieces of asphalt shingle composition particles with different sizes)). Seder does not disclose the crusher to be a kinetic pulverizer creating vortices within and subjected the material to self-collisions. Seder and Csendes disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. processing construction material). Csendes , in a similar art, teaches a method to micronize construction material (see col.2 lines 5-15) to include the step of a kinetic pulverization stage with a crusher to be a kinetic pulverizer creating vortices within and subjected the material to self-collisions to produce a pulverized material (see col.16 lines 26-32 and 45-50). Csendes teaches the use of the kinetic pulverizer to improve safety and energy efficiency (see col.1 lines 39-41 or col.2 lines 48-50). It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the kinetic pulverizer of Seder with the kinetic pulverizer of Csendes to be able to allow all the stages to be done with the same apparatus to increase efficiency, safety and lower maintenance and energy . Regarding claim 154, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 153, Seder further discloses subjecting a C&D source material (waste stream of asphalt, see para.[0002]) to an upstream separation stage (asbestos separation see para.[0002] and [0012]) to produce at least one stream of the feedstock (the batch) comprising the asphalt shingles (RAS, see para.[0012]-[0013]). Regarding claim 155, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 153, Seder in view of Csendes, further discloses subjecting the feedstock to a crushing or grinding stage upstream of the kinetic pulverization stage (the apparatus of Csendes discloses multiple stages of Grinding, crushing /pulverizing see element 11 and 12). Regarding claim 156, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 153, Seder further discloses wherein the feedstock (raw material, see para.[0012]) comprises a source separated material (batch) comprising the asphalt shingles (RAS, see para.[0012]-[0013]). Regarding claim 157, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 153, Seder further discloses wherein the asphalt shingles (RAS) further comprise an infrangible component (metal or nail) embedded in the ductile component (paper or fiberglass) and/or the frangible component (asphalt, see para.[0002], [0014] and [0017]). Regarding claim 158, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 153, Seder further discloses wherein the size-reduced stream comprises an asphalt product (para.[0017] recited asphalt after pulverization). Regarding claim 159, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 158, Seder further discloses wherein the asphalt product is configured for use as a cement mixture additive, in the production of biofuels, as a hydrocarbon-based additive, in the production of asphalt, and/or in the production of shingles (see para.[0002]-[0004]). Regarding claim 160, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 153, Seder further discloses wherein the oversized stream comprises a plurality of paper or fiberglass based underlayers (see Para.[0017]). Claim 161 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seder in view of Csendes as applied to claim 160 above, an in further view of Zickell et al. BE Publication (1,019,403) hereinafter Zickell . Regarding claim 161, The prior art Seder as modified by Csendes discloses all limitations in claim 160, Seder further discloses wherein the plurality of paper or fiberglass based underlayers (see para.[0017]) Neither Seder nor Csendes disclose the plurality of paper or fiberglass to be configured for use as animal bedding, mulch, or in the production of paper products. Seder and Zickell disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. processing of asphalt material). Zickell , in a similar art, teaches a method of recycling asphalt material to extract paper or fiberglass to be used as animal bedding, mulch, or in the production of paper products (see pag.4 lines 16-21) . Zickell teaches the extraction paper or fiberglass to be used as animal bedding, mulch, or in the production of paper products to efficiently recycle roofing waste material (abstract). It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the method of Seder with the step of extracting paper for the purpose to production of paper products as taught by Zickell to be able to efficiently recycle roofing waste material and helping protect the environment . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Smith O. BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5976 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00 . 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 L. Templeton can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270 1477 . 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. December 15, 2025 /BSO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725