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 “thermoplastic composition layer is applied over a second area defined by a second length and a second width; and wherein the second area is greater than the first area” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim (s) 1- 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowe US 2009/0041541 in view of Kugel et al. US 9.932,476 . Lowe discloses a method for securing a raised pavement marker (14) to a groove (16) in a pavement (12) by applying a suitable adhesive, or epoxy (30) to the groove (16) and placing the marker (14) into the groove (16). See Figs. 1-8b; [0025-27]. What Lowe does not disclose is the use of a polyamide resin. However, Kugel et al. teach a pavement marking composition comprising: A blend of rosin modified ester, a pigment, polyamide copolymer and inorganic filler . The Col. 1 , ln . 42- Col. 2 , ln. 45. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bond the marker of Lowe with a polyamide resin as taught by Kugel et al. as a matter of design choice since Epoxy and polyamide resins are art recognized equivalents. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowe US 2009/0041541 in view of Kugel et al. US 9.932,476 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lazarus et al. US 6,107,367. Lowe in view of Kugel et al. disclose essentially all that is claimed except for how hot the thermoplastic composition is when applied to the cut in the roadway. However, Lazarus et al. teach it is known thermoplastic material are normally applied by melting and applying the composition to a surface at a temperature of about 350F-450F. Col. 1, lns . 57-65. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the thermoplastic composition of Lowe in view of Kugel et al. at a temperature above 350F as taught by Lazarus et al. in order to ensure complete curing of the thermoplastic. Claim(s) 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowe US 2009/0041541 in view of Kugel et al. US 9.932,476 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ca brera et al. US 6,576,074 . Lowe in view of Kugel et al. disclose essentially all that is claimed except for the amount of each component of the thermoplastic composition. However, Cabrera et al. teach it is known to make thermoplastic compositions including: 60-85% inorganic filler, 5-10% polyamide resin, 3-8% plasticizer, 1 -4% paraffin wax, less than 2% anti-oxidant, up to 5% pigment. Col. 4, lns . 41-Col. 5, ln. 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the thermoplastic composition of Lowe in view of Kugel et al. with the additives taught by Cabrera et al. in order to accommodate specific weather environments. Claim (s) 7 , 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowe US 2009/0041541 . Lowe discloses a method for securing a raised pavement marker (14) to a groove ( 16 ) in a pavement (12) by applying a suitable adhesive, or epoxy (30) to the groove (16) and placing the marker (14) into the groove (16). See Figs. 1-8b; [0025-27]. Wherein The method comprising: Cutting a 1 st area (16) where the marker (14) is to be mounted. Cutting a 2 nd area (10) that is greater in area than the 1 st area (16). Applying a molten thermoplastic adhesive (30) into the 1 st and 2 nd areas (10, 16). Pressing a raised pavement marker (20) into the thermoplastic adhesive such that adhesive can flow over and around the anchor tabs (42). [0029-31]. What Lowe does not disclose is if the thermoplastic adhesive is applied in 1 or 2 layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adhesive of Lowe in 2 layers in order to ensure complete coverage of the marker base. Claim(s) 13, 14, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowe US 2009/0041541 in view of Cabrera et al. US 6,576,074. Lowe discloses essentially all that is claimed except for the amount of each component of the thermoplastic composition. However, Cabrera et al. teach it is known to make thermoplastic compositions including: 60-85% inorganic filler, 5-10% polyamide resin, 3-8% plasticizer, 1-4% paraffin wax, less than 2% anti-oxidant, up to 5% pigment. Col. 4, lns . 41-Col. 5, ln. 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the thermoplastic composition of Lowe with the additives taught by Cabrera et al. in order to accommodate specific weather environments. Conclusion 9 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6986 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm . 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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need help from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RAYMOND W ADDIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 3/10/2026