(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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10961462 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘462 describes the claim limitations in slightly more broad terms.
Applicant is reminded that those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed 1n the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F. 2d 438, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
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.
(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) 1-2, and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by McDade (US 2020/0199456 A1).
Dade teaches a method for extracting hydrocarbon fractions from a material. The material is a matrix and is Limestone rock asphalt and/or limestone rock crusher fines. See p 3. This is done to get a range of preferred molecular weights. The treatment generates volatile comprising hydrocarbon fractions. These are separated by molecular weight. The vapors enter a separator to get a resultant extracted material. See claim 1.
The extraction process involves heat treatment, see p 23.
The process is modulated to get the desired molecular wight fraction. See p 20-21
The base material comprises a hydrocarbon fraction having two molecular weight ranges. See claim 5.
The fractions include C1 to C60 and C1 to C14. See claims 6 and 7.
The desired range of molecular weight is modulated by adjusting the amount of energy (heat, pressure) imparted to the base material.
The treatments may be used in a series and include heat, mechanical and chemical. This may steps may be directed to get specific molecular weight ranges. See p 21-24 and 29-30. Focus on P 23.
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McDade (US 2020/0199456 A1).
Regarding claims 3-8 and the difference between the “LRA” or of the prior art, that being limestone rock asphalt and the “LRA” of the instant application (the instant application defines the LRA as limestone rock aggregate).
The prior art defines limestone rock asphalt as naturally occurring limestone material that is naturally impregnated with hydrocarbons. See p 3. The instant application defines limestone rock aggregate as a naturally occurring limestone rock material impregnated with bituminous material. See p 7.
Bituminous limestone inherently contains hydrocarbon fraction.
In the alternative the slight difference between the two materials which undergo the exact same process to obtain the same hydrocarbon fractions is an obvious variant
In another alternative, it is the position of the examiner that the use of aggregate versus asphalt is a result effective variable and as such can be optimized without undue experimentation. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art and would have been obvious, consult In re Boesch and Slaney (205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDade (US 2020/0199456 A1).
To see most of what McDade teaches please see above. The following claims are rejected under 103 as the claim limitations are listed as requirements, but as optional.
Regarding claim 20, the amount of hydrocarbon fractions would be different, given material has different base amounts of the hydrocarbon fractions and may be heated multiple different times at multiple different temperature in multiple different ways.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771