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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure appears to contain a typo at pg. 31, line 22, which states that “1Sved = 10-13 seconds”; it appears that this should read “1 Sved = 10 -13 seconds”, as a Svedberg unit is 10 -13 seconds, not 10 to 13 seconds. Appropriate correction is required. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claim s 22, 28-30, 34-36 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 22, 28-30 and 36 contain a grammatical error; in claims 28-29, “ of from ” should read “ from ” (see claim s 28-29 each at line 1 ) , and in claims 22, 30 and 36, “of from” should read “of” (see claims 22, 30 and 36 each at line 2). Claim 34 appears to contain a typo; it appears that “at least melamine formaldehyde resin” should read “at least one melamine formaldehyde resin” (see claim 34 at line 2). Claims 35 and 36 contain a grammatical error; “are” should read “is” (see claims 35-36 each at line 2). Claim 38 contains a grammatical error; “application” should read “applications” (see claim 38 at line 2). Appropriate correction is required . Claim Interpretation For purposes of claim interpretation, “ MDI ” as recited in claim s 24-32 is interpreted as meaning methylene diphenyl diisocyanate , as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent as discussed in the s pecification a t pg. 12, line 13 . For purposes of claim interpretation, “ Sved ” as recited in claims 35-36 is interpreted as meaning Svedberg units, i.e., 10 -13 seconds, as this would be the meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and as Applicant’s specification states that Sved is 10-13 seconds at pg. 31, lines 21-22, which is assumed to be a typo that should read 10 -13 seconds. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 22 and 24-32 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. Claim 22 recites the plural limitation “the thermosetting reactive compounds are present ” (see claim 22 at line s 1 -2 ), which indicates that multiple compounds are required, but claim 20, from which claim 22 depends, only requires at least one thermosetting reactive compound. The scope of claim 22 is indefinite as it is not clear whether the claim actually requires multiple compounds or only requires at least one compound. For purposes of claim interpretation, Examiner treated claim 22 as meaning the method according to claim 20, wherein the total amount of thermosetting reactive compounds is from 1.0 wt.% to 5.0 wt.%, as this language makes it clearer that only at least one compound is required, as “the total amount of compounds” could refer to one compound or multiple compounds. Clarification is requested. Claims 24-25 each recite limitations for the aromatic isocyanate, but do not indicate whether or not the aromatic isocyanate is actually required to meet the limitations of the claim, as in claim 23, from which claims 24-25 depend, the aromatic isocyanate is optional. It is not clear whether the aromatic isocyanate is required in claims 24-25, or whether claims 24-25 mean that the aromatic isocyanate, if present, requires the further limitations recited (i.e., aromatic isocyanate is not required to meet the limitations of claims 24-25). For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claims 24-25 as meaning the method according to claim 23, wherein the isocyanate is an aromatic isocyanate, i.e., an aromatic isocyanate is required to meet the claim limitations. Clarification is requested. Claims 26-27 and 29 each recite limitations for the polymeric MDI, but do not indicate whether or not the polymeric MDI is actually required to meet the limitations of the claim, as in claim 2 4 , from which claims 26-27 and 29 depend, the polymeric MDI is optional. It is not clear whether the polymeric MDI is required in claims 26-27 and 29 , or whether claims 26-27 and 29 mean that the polymeric MDI , if present, requires the further limitations recited (i.e., polymeric MDI is not required to meet the limitations of claims 26-27 and 29 ). For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claims 26-27 and 29 as meaning the method according to claim 2 4 , wherein the aromatic isocyanate is a polymeric MDI , i.e., a polymeric MDI is required to meet the claim limitations. Clarification is requested. Claim 28 recites the limitation " the amount of polymeric MDI " (see claim 28 at line 1 ) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No polymeric MDI is recited in claim 20, from which claim 28 depends. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 28 as though it is dependent on claim 24 rather than claim 20, as claim 24 recites a polymeric MDI, and treated claim 28 as requiring the polymeric MDI (which is optional in claim 24) to meet the limitations of the claim, as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent. Clarification is requested. Claim 30 recites the limitation " the range " (see claim 30 at line 2) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . Claims 31-32 each recite limitations for the monomeric MDI, but do not indicate whether or not the monomeric MDI is actually required to meet the limitations of the claim, as in claim 25, from which claims 31-32 depend, the monomeric MDI is optional. It is not clear whether the monomeric MDI is required in claims 31-32, or whether claims 31-32 mean that the monomeric MDI, if present, requires the further limitations recited (i.e., monomeric MDI is not required to meet the limitations of claims 31-32). For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 31 as meaning the method according to claim 25, wherein the aromatic isocyanate is a monomeric MDI, i.e., a monomeric MDI is required to meet the claim limitations of claims 31-32 . Clarification is requested. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 20-30 and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleischel , et al. ( U.S. Pub. No. 2020 / 0199025 - A1 ) (hereinafter, “ FLEISCHEL ”) . Regarding claim 20 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method comprising providing an asphalt composition (see FLEISCHEL generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0004] ) , wherein said composition comprises at least one thermosetting reactive compound ( see FLEISCHEL at Abstract ), wherein the total amount of thermosetting reactive compounds in the composition is 0.1 to 10.0 wt.-% based on the total weight of the composition ( see FLEISCHEL at Abstract ) , and wherein at least one thermosetting reactive compound is an isocyanate ( see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0001], teaching polymeric MDI ). The recitation of “for weatherproofing applications” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the asphalt composition rather than a limitation directed toward the composition or the method of providing a composition, and therefore is not given patentable weight in the present claim. Any asphalt composition as claimed by the present claim would be expected to be able to perform the intended use of being used for weatherproofing applications. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “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. Although not required to meet the limitations of the present claim, see FLEISCHEL at paragraphs [0003]-[0004], teaching that the composition may be used for weatherproofing applications. Regarding claim 21 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 20 . As discussed above, the recitation of “weatherproofing applications” and “roofing applications” are merely directed toward an intended use of the composition rather than being directed toward the claimed composition or method , and therefore do not hold patentable weight in the present claim. Although not required to meet the limitations of the present claim, see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0048], teaching that the composition can be used as any classical asphalt compositions of the art, i.e., it can clearly be used for roofing applications. Regarding claim 22 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 20, wherein the thermosetting reactive compounds are present in a total amount of from 1.0 wt.% to 5.0 wt.%, based on the total weight of the asphalt composition (see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0038], teaching not more than 5.0 wt.% and at least 0.9 wt.%, e.g., 1 to 1.9 wt.% ) . Regarding claim 23 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 20, wherein the isocyanate is selected from aromatic isocyanates or aliphatic isocyanates (see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0001], teaching polymeric MDI ) . Regarding claim 24 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 23, wherein the aromatic isocyanate is selected from monomeric MDI, polymeric MDI, toluene diisocyanate, polymeric toluene diisocyanate, or 1,5- naphthalene diisocyanate (see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0001], teaching polymeric MDI ) . Regarding claim 25 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 23, wherein the aromatic isocyanate is monomeric MDI and/or polymeric MDI (see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0001], teaching polymeric MDI ) . Regarding claim 26 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 24, wherein the polymeric MDI has a functionality of at least 2.5 (see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0030] ) . Regarding claim 27 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 24, wherein the polymeric MDI has a functionality in the range 2.5 to 4 (see FLEISCHEL at paragraphs [0030], [0084]-[0085] and [0089], teaching functionality of 2.7 or 2.9 ) . Regarding claim 28 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 24, wherein the amount of polymeric MDI is of from 0.5 to 2.0 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition (see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0038], teaching 0.5 to 1.8 wt.% ) . Regarding claim 29 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 24, wherein the amount of polymeric MDI is of from 2.0 to 5.0 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition (see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0038], teaching 2.1 to 3.7 wt.% ) . Regarding claim 30 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 24, wherein the polymeric MDI has an iron content in the range of from 1 to 100 ppm by weight (see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0031] ) . Regarding claim 3 5 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 20, wherein at least 18% by weight based on the total weight of the composition are particles with a sedimentation coefficient above 5000 Sved in a white spirit solvent (see FLEISCHEL at Abstract ) . Regarding claim 36 , FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 20, wherein at least 20% by weight based on the total weight of the composition are particles with a sedimentation coefficient in a range of from 10000 to 1000000 Sved in a white spirit solvent (see FLEISCHEL at claim 2 ) . Regarding claim 37 , FLEISCHEL teaches an asphalt composition (see FLEISCHEL generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0004] ) , wherein said composition comprises at least one thermosetting reactive compound ( see FLEISCHEL at Abstract), wherein the total amount of thermosetting reactive compounds in the composition is 0.1 to 10.0 wt.-% based on the total weight of the composition ( see FLEISCHEL at Abstract) , and wherein at least one thermosetting reactive compound is an isocyanate ( see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0001], teaching polymeric MDI) . The recitation of “for weatherproofing applications” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the asphalt composition rather than a limitation directed toward the claimed composition, and therefore is not given patentable weight in the present claim. Any asphalt composition as claimed by the present claim would be expected to be able to perform the intended use of being used for weatherproofing applications. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “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. Although not required to meet the limitations of the present claim, see FLEISCHEL at paragraphs [0003]-[0004], teaching that the composition may be used for weatherproofing applications. Regarding claim 38 , FLEISCHEL teaches a composition according to claim 37. As discussed above, the recitation of “weatherproofing applications” and “roofing applications” are merely directed toward an intended use of the composition rather than being directed toward the claimed composition, and therefore do not hold patentable weight in the present claim. Although not required to meet the limitations of the present claim, see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0048], teaching that the composition can be used as any classical asphalt compositions of the art, i.e., it can clearly be used for roofing applications. Claim s 20-31, 33 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Praw , et al. ( WO - 2020 / 035403 - A1 ) (hereinafter, “ PRAW ”). Regarding claim 20 , PRAW teaches a method comprising providing an asphalt composition (see PRAW generally at Abstract and pg. 1, lines 6-12 and 19-26 ) , wherein said composition comprises at least one thermosetting reactive compound ( see PRAW at Abstract and pg. 1, lines 6-12 ), wherein the total amount of thermosetting reactive compounds in the composition is 0.1 to 10.0 wt.-% based on the total weight of the composition ( see PRAW at Abstract, teaching 0.1 to 8 wt.% ) , and wherein at least one thermosetting reactive compound is an isocyanate ( see PRAW at Abstract ). The recitation of “for weatherproofing applications” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the asphalt composition rather than a limitation directed toward the composition or the method of providing a composition, and therefore is not given patentable weight in the present claim. Any asphalt composition as claimed by the present claim would be expected to be able to perform the intended use of being used for weatherproofing applications. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “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. Although not required to meet the limitations of the present claim, see PRAW at pg. 1, lines 19-26 , teaching that the composition may be used for weatherproofing applications. Regarding claim 21 , PRAW teaches a method according to claim 20 . As discussed above, the recitation of “weatherproofing applications” and “roofing applications” are merely directed toward an intended use of the composition rather than being directed toward the claimed composition or method , and therefore do not hold patentable weight in the present claim. Although not required to meet the limitations of the present claim, see PRAW at pg. 16, lines 1-2 , teaching that the composition can be used as any classical asphalt compositions of the art, i.e., it can clearly be used for roofing applications. Regarding claim 22, PRAW teaches a method according to claim 20, wherein the thermosetting reactive compounds are present in a total amount of from 1.0 wt.% to 5.0 wt.%, based on the total weight of the asphalt composition (see PRAW at pg. 5, lines 24-35, teaching at least 0.9 wt.% and not more than 5.0 wt.%, e.g., 1 to 3.9 wt.% ) . Regarding claim 23 , PRAW teaches a method according to claim 20, wherein the isocyanate is selected from aromatic isocyanates or aliphatic isocyanates (see PRAW at pg. 5, line 37 - pg. 6, line 3, teaching toluene diisocyanate and polymeric or monomeric MDI ) . Regarding claim 24 , PRAW teaches a method according to claim 23, wherein the aromatic isocyanate is selected from monomeric MDI, polymeric MDI, toluene diisocyanate, polymeric toluene diisocyanate, or 1,5- naphthalene diisocyanate ( see PRAW at pg. 5, line 37 - pg. 6, line 3, teaching toluene diisocyanate and polymeric or monomeric MDI ) . Regarding claim 25 , PRAW teaches a method according to claim 23, wherein the aromatic isocyanate is monomeric MDI and/or polymeric MDI (see PRAW at pg. 6, lines 2-3 ) . Regarding claim 26 , PRAW teaches a method according to claim 24, wherein the polymeric MDI has a functionality of at least 2.5 (see PRAW at pg. 7, lines 11-12 ) . Regarding claim 27 , PRAW teaches a method according to claim 24, wherein the polymeric MDI has a functionality in the range 2.5 to 4 (see PRAW at pg. 7, lines 11-13, teaching functionality of 2.8, 2.9 or 3.0 ) . Regarding claim 28 , PRAW teaches a method according to claim 24, wherein the amount of polymeric MDI is of from 0.5 to 2.0 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition (see PRAW at pg. 5, lines 24-35, teaching 1.1 to 2.0 wt.% ) . Regarding claim 29 , PRAW teaches a method according to claim 24, wherein the amount of polymeric MDI is of from 2.0 to 5.0 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition (see PRAW at pg. 5, lines 24-35, teaching 2.1 to 3.7 wt.% ) . Regarding claim 30 , PRAW teaches a method according to claim 24, wherein the polymeric MDI has an iron content in the range of from 1 to 100 ppm by weight (see PRAW at pg. 7, lines 15-16 ) . Regarding claim 31, PRAW teaches a method according to claim 25, wherein the monomeric MDI is a carbodiimide modified monomeric MDI (see PRAW at pg. 7, lines 19-28 ). Regarding claim 33 , PRAW teaches a method according to claim 20, wherein the asphalt composition further comprises at least one polymer selected from styrene / butadiene / styrene copolymer (SBS), styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), neoprene, polyethylene, low density polyethylene, oxidized high density polyethylene, polypropylene, oxidized high density polypropylene, maleated polypropylene, ethylene-butyl-acrylate-glycidyl-methacrylate terpolymer, ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA), polyphosphoric acid (PPA), or a combination of two or more of the aforementioned (see PRAW at Abstract ) . Regarding claim 37 , PRAW teaches an asphalt composition (see PRAW generally at Abstract and pg. 1, lines 6-12 and 19-26 ) , wherein said composition comprises at least one thermosetting reactive compound ( see PRAW at Abstract and pg. 1, lines 6-12), wherein the total amount of thermosetting reactive compounds in the composition is 0.1 to 10.0 wt.-% based on the total weight of the composition ( see PRAW at Abstract, teaching 0.1 to 8 wt.%) , and wherein at least one thermosetting reactive compound is an isocyanate ( see PRAW at Abstract) . The recitation of “for weatherproofing applications” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the asphalt composition rather than a limitation directed toward the claimed composition, and therefore is not given patentable weight in the present claim. Any asphalt composition as claimed by the present claim would be expected to be able to perform the intended use of being used for weatherproofing applications. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “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. Although not required to meet the limitations of the present claim, see PRAW at pg. 1, lines 19-26 , teaching that the composition may be used for weatherproofing applications. Regarding claim 38 , PRAW teaches a composition according to claim 37. As discussed above, the recitation of “weatherproofing applications” and “roofing applications” are merely directed toward an intended use of the composition rather than being directed toward the claimed composition, and therefore do not hold patentable weight in the present claim. Although not required to meet the limitations of the present claim, see PRAW at pg. 16, lines 1-2 , teaching that the composition can be used as any classical asphalt compositions of the art, i.e., it can clearly be used for roofing applications . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FLEISCHEL . Regarding claim 34, FLEISCHEL teaches a method according to claim 20, wherein the thermosetting reactive compound comprises at least one epoxy resin and/or at least one melamine formaldehyde resin (see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0024] ). FLEISCHEL does not explicitly mention that the isocyanate and the epoxy and/or melamine formaldehyde resin are used together; however, FLEISCHEL explicitly states that it is understood that combinations of preferred embodiments are within the scope of the present invention (see FLEISCHEL at paragraph [0023] ) , i.e., it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an embodiment comprising the isocyanate and an embodiment comprising the epoxy resin and/or melamine formaldehyde resin can be used in combination, i.e., these thermosetting reactive compounds can be used together. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRAW . Regarding claim 34, PRAW teaches a method according to claim 20, wherein the thermosetting reactive compound comprises at least one epoxy resin and/or at least one melamine formaldehyde resin (see PRAW at pg. 15, lines 8-21 ). PRAW does not explicitly mention that the isocyanate and the epoxy and/or melamine formaldehyde resin are used together; however, PRAW explicitly states that it is understood that combinations of preferred embodiments are within the scope of the present invention (see PRAW at pg. 4, lines 28-29 ), i.e., it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an embodiment comprising the isocyanate and an embodiment comprising the epoxy resin and/or melamine formaldehyde resin can be used in combination, i.e., these thermosetting reactive compounds can be used together . Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRAW in view of Schatz, et al. ( WO - 2020 / 126585 - A1 ) (hereinafter, “SCHATZ”) . Regarding claim 32, PRAW teaches a method according to claim 31, wherein the carbodiimide modified monomeric MDI comprises 4,4’-MDI and carbodiimide (see PRAW at pg. 7, lines 19-28 ). However, PRAW does not explicitly mention that the carbodiimide modified monomeric MDI comprises 65 wt.% to 85 wt.% of 4,4'-MDI and 15 wt.% to 35 wt.% of carbodiimide . SCHATZ teaches a method of providing an asphalt composition comprising 0.1 to 10 wt.% of monomeric MDI (see SCHATZ at Abstract and pg. 1, lines 5-7), wherein the monomeric MDI is carbodiimide modified monomeric MDI comprising 70 to 80 wt.% of 4,4’-mMDI and 20 to 30 wt.% of carbodiimide (see SCHATZ at pg. 4, line 34 - pg. 5, line 9 ) , which overlaps with and thereby renders obvious the claimed ranges of 65 to 85 wt.% and 15 to 35 wt.% , respectively . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of PRAW by using the 4,4’-MDI in an amount of 50 to 80 wt.% and the carbodiimide in an amount of 20 to 30 wt.% in the carbodiimide modified monomeric MDI as taught by SCHATZ (see SCHATZ at pg. 4, line 34 - pg. 5, line 9 ) . One of ordinary skill in the art could have used the carbodiimide and mMDI in these amounts with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a carbodiimide modified monomeric MDI which is suitable for use as a thermosetting reactive compound in asphalt compositions and will improve the physical properties of the asphalt composition such as being more constant over a range of temperatures, having better storage stability at high temperature, having increased elastic response, etc. (see SCHATZ at pg. 2, lines 20-26). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists ( In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 20-38 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 20-38 of copending Application No. 18/574,787 (reference application) (hereinafter, “787”) . This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. Each claim 20-38 of 787 claims the same invention as each claim 20-38, respectively, of the present application. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 20- 25 , 31-32 and 3 5 -38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 1,2157,823 (hereinafter, “823”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : In regard to present claims 37-38, 823 claims an asphalt composition, wherein said composition comprises at least one thermosetting reactive compound , wherein the total amount of thermosetting reactive compounds in the composition is 0.1 to 10.0 wt.-% based on the total weight of the composition , and wherein at least one thermosetting reactive compound is an isocyanate (see 823 at claim 1 ). As discussed above, the recitation of “for weatherproofing applications” and “roofing applications” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the asphalt composition rather than a limitation directed toward the claimed composition, and therefore is not given patentable weight in the present claims. In regard to present claims 20- 21, 823 claims a method comprising providing an asphalt composition (see 823 at claims 8 and 13 ) , wherein said composition comprises at least one thermosetting reactive compound , wherein the total amount of thermosetting reactive compounds in the composition is 0.1 to 10.0 wt.-% based on the total weight of the composition , and wherein at least one thermosetting reactive compound is an isocyanate (see 823 at claim 1 ) . As discussed above, the recitation of “for weatherproofing applications” and “roofing applications” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the asphalt composition rather than a limitation directed toward the claimed composition, and therefore is not given patentable weight in the present claim s. In regard to present claims 22 -25, 31-32 and 35-36, as set forth above, 823 claims a method according to present claim 20 (see 823 at claims 1, 8 and 13), wherein: the thermosetting reactive compounds are present in a total amount overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the range of 1.0 wt.% to 5.0 wt.% (see 823 at claim 1, reciting 0.1 to 10.0 wt.%), the isocyanate is selected from aromatic isocyanates or aliphatic isocyanates, is selected from monomeric MDI, polymeric MDI, toluene diisocyanate, polymeric toluene diisocyanate, or 1,5- naphthalene diisocyanate , and is monomeric MDI and/or polymeric MDI (see 823 at claim 1, reciting monomeric MDI), wherein the monomeric MDI is a carbodiimide modified monomeric MDI, which comprises 65 wt.% to 85 wt.% of 4,4’-MDI and 15 wt.% to 35 wt.% of carbodiimide (see 823 at claim 1), and wherein at least 18% by weight of the composition is particles with a sedimentation coefficient above 5000 Sved in a white spirit solvent, and wherein the composition comprises particles with a sedimentation coefficient overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 10000 to 1000000 Sved in a white spirit solvent, in an amount overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of at least 20% by weight (see 823 at claim 1). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists ( In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Claim s 20-25, 28-29 and 35-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,059,749 (hereinafter, “749”) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : In regard to present claim s 37-38 , 749 claims an asphalt composition, wherein said composition comprises at least one thermosetting reactive compound, wherein the total amount of thermosetting reactive compounds in the composition is 0.1 to 10.0 wt.-% based on the total weight of the composition, and wherein at least one thermosetting reactive compound is an isocyanate (see 749 at claim 1). As discussed above, the recitation of “for weatherproofing applications” and “roofing applications” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the asphalt composition rather than a limitation directed toward the claimed composition, and therefore is not given patentable weight in the present claims . In regard to present claims 20-21, 749 claims a method comprising providing an asphalt composition (see 749 at claims 8 and 1 4 ) , wherein said composition comprises at least one thermosetting reactive compound , wherein the total amount of thermosetting reactive compounds in the composition is 0.1 to 10.0 wt.-% based on the total weight of the composition , and wherein at least one thermosetting reactive compound is an isocyanate (see 749 at claim 1 ) As discussed above, the recitation of “for weatherproofing applications” and “roofing applications” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the asphalt composition rather than a limitation directed toward the claimed composition, and therefore is not given patentable weight in the present claims. In regard to present claims 22 -25, 28-29 and 35-36, as set forth above, 749 claims a method according to present claim 20 (see 749 at claims 1, 8 and 13), wherein: the thermosetting reactive compounds are present in a total amount overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the range of 1.0 wt.% to 5.0 wt.% (see 749 at claim 1, reciting 0.1 to 10.0 wt.%), the isocyanate is selected from aromatic isocyanates or aliphatic isocyanates, is selected from monomeric MDI, polymeric MDI, toluene diisocyanate, polymeric toluene diisocyanate, or 1,5- naphthalene diisocyanate , and is monomeric MDI and/or polymeric MDI (see 749 at claim 1, reciting polymeric MDI), wherein the polymeric MDI is present in an amount overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed ranges of 0.5 to 2.0 wt.% and 2.0 to 5.0 wt.% ( see 749 at claim 1, reciting 0.1 to 10.0 wt.% ), and wherein at least 18% by weight of the composition is particles with a sedimentation coefficient above 5000 Sved in a white spirit solvent, and wherein the composition comprises particles with a sedimentation coefficient overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 10000 to 1000000 Sved in a white spirit solvent, in an amount overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of at least 20% by weight (see 749 at claim 1). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists ( In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Claims 26-27, 30 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 14 of 749 in view of PRAW. In regard to claims 26-27 and 30, as set forth above, 749 claims a method according to present claim 24, wherein the aromatic isocyanate is polymeric MDI (see 749 at claims 1, 8 and 14). 749 does not claim a method according to present claim 749 wherein the polymeric MDI has a functionality of at least 2.5 and in a range of 2.5 to 4, or wherein the polymeric MDI has an iron content in a range of 1 to 100 ppm. However, polymeric MDI having these features is a known asphalt additive in the art. For example, PRAW discloses a method according to the present claim 24 (see PRAW at Abstract, pg. 1, lines 6-12 and 19-26, pg. 5, line 37 - pg. 6, line 3 pg. 16, lines 1-2) wherein the polymeric MDI has a functionality of at least 2.5, e.g., 2.8, 2.9 or 3.0 (see PRAW at pg. 7, lines 11-13), and wherein the polymeric MDI has an iron content in the range of 1 to 100 ppm (see PRAW at pg. 7, lines 15-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the asphalt of claim 1 of 749 using polymeric MDI having a functionality of, e.g., 3.0 and an iron content of 1 to 100 ppm as taught by PRAW . One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected this MDI with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing an enhanced asphalt composition. Further, this is a known polymeric MDI in the art as evidenced by PRAW , and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. In regard to claim 34, as set forth above, 749 claims a method according to present claim 20, wherein the composition comprises epoxy resins or melamine formaldehyde resins (see 749 at claims 1, 8 and 14). However, the claim does not explicitly recite that the composition comprises both the polymeric MDI and the epoxy/melamine formaldehyde resins. However, it is known in the art that these thermosetting reactive compounds can be used together. For example, PRAW teaches a method according to present claim 20 (see PRAW at Abstract and pg. 1, lines 6-12) wherein in preferred embodiments, the thermosetting reactive compound is polymeric MDI, epoxy resin or melamine formaldehyde resin ( see PRAW at pg. 15, lines 8-21), and explicitly states that it is understood that combinations of preferred embodiments are within the scope of the present invention ( see PRAW at pg. 4, lines 28-29 ), i.e., it is clear that the polymeric MDI and the epoxy and/or melamine formaldehyde resin can be used together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the asphalt of claim 1 of 749 using both the polymeric MDI and the epoxy resin and/or melamine formaldehyde resin, in view of the disclosure of PRAW that it is understood that these embodiments can be used in combination. Claim s 20-25, 28-29, 33 and 37-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 12 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,509,586 (hereinafter, “586”) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : In regard to claims 37-38, 586 claims an asphalt composition, wherein said composition comprises at least one thermosetting reactive compound, wherein the total amount of thermosetting reactive compounds in the composition is 0.1 to 10.0 wt.-% based on the total weight of the composition, and wherein at least one thermosetting reactive compound is an isocyanate (see 586 at claim 1). As discussed above, the recitation of “for weatherproofing applications” and “roofing applications” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the asphalt composition rather than a limitation directed toward the claimed composition, and therefore is not given patentable weight in the present claims. In regard to present claims 20-21, 586 claims a method comprising providing an asphalt composition (see 586 at claims 12 and 17 ) , wherein said composition comprises at least one thermosetting reactive compound , wherein the total amount of thermosetting reactive compounds in the composition is 0.1 to 10.0 wt.-% based on the total weight of the composition , and wherein at least one thermosetting reactive compound is an isocyanate (see 586 at claim 1 ) As discussed above, the recitation of “for weatherproofing applications” and “roofing applications” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the asphalt composition rather than a limitation directed toward the claimed composition, and therefore is not given patentable weight in the present claims. In regard to present claims 22 -25, 28-29 and 33 , as set forth above, 586 claims a method according to present claim 20 (see 586 at claims 1, 12 and 17), wherein: the thermosetting reactive compounds are present in a total amount overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the range of 1.0 wt.% to 5.0 wt.% (see 586 at claim 1, reciting 0.1 to 8 wt.%), the isocyanate is selected from aromatic isocyanates or aliphatic isocyanates, is selected from monomeric MDI, polymeric MDI, toluene diisocyanate, polymeric toluene diisocyanate, or 1,5- naphthalene diisocyanate , and is monomeric MDI and/or polymeric MDI (see 586 at claim 1, reciting polymeric MDI), wherein the polymeric MDI is present in an amount overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed ranges of 0.5 to 2.0 wt.% and 2.0 to 5.0 wt.% (see 586 at claim 1, reciting 0.1 to 8 wt.%), and wherein the asphalt composition further comprises at least one polymer selected from styrene / butadiene / styrene copolymer (SBS), styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), neoprene, polyethylene, low density polyethylene, oxidized high density polyethylene, polypropylene, oxidized high density polypropylene, maleated polypropylene, ethylene-butyl-acrylate-glycidyl-methacrylate terpolymer, ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA), polyphosphoric acid (PPA), or a combination of two or more of the aforementioned (see 586 at claim 1) . As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists ( In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Claims 26-27 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 17 of 586 in view of PRAW. In regard to claims 26-27 and 30, as set forth above, 586 claims a method according to present claim 24, wherein the aromatic isocyanate is polymeric MDI (see 586 at claims 1, 12 and 17). 586 does not claim a method according to present claim 586 wherein the polymeric MDI has a functionality of at least 2.5 and in a range of 2.5 to 4, or wherein the polymeric MDI has an iron content in a range of 1 to 100 ppm. However, polymeric MDI having these features is a known asphalt additive in the art. For example, PRAW discloses a method according to the present claim 24 (see PRAW at Abstract, pg. 1, lines 6-12 and 19-26, pg. 5, line 37 - pg. 6, line 3 pg. 16, lines 1-2) wherein the polymeric MDI has a functionality of at least 2.5, e.g., 2.8, 2.9 or 3.0 (see PRAW at pg. 7, lines 11-13), and wherein the polymeric MDI has an iron content in the range of 1 to 100 ppm (see PRAW at pg. 7, lines 15-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the asphalt of claim 1 of 586 using polymeric MDI having a functionality of, e.g., 3.0 and an iron content of 1 to 100 ppm as taught by PRAW . One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected this