DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 17 March 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are pending. Claims 8-10 are newly added.
The previous objection and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained. In addition, newly added claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. The rejections follow.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wreczycki (J. Wreczycki et al., Bitumen Binders Modified with Sulfur/Organic Copolymers, 15 Materials 1774:1-17 (2022)).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8-10, Wreczycki discloses a process comprising blending 97.5 wt% to 99 wt% base bitumen and from 1 wt% to 2.5 wt% sulfur/organic copolymer comprising dicylopentadiane (petroleum fraction) and limonene and/or styrene at a temperature of at least 140°C with stirring at 1000 rpm for 60 minutes to obtain a blend (see Wreczycki, Abstract; and page 4, second paragraph). The blend is one that exhibits properties of a higher-grade VG bitumen (see Wreczycki, Tables 3 and 4). The base bitumen is one having properties similar to a petroleum bitumen (see Wreczycki, Table 3).
Wreczycki does not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum blend formation temperature is 140°C or wherein the blend is chilled from 15°C to 25°C for 12 to 24 hours after blending to obtain the higher-grade VG bitumen.
However, Wreczycki discloses wherein the copolymer formation temperature is 140°C (see Wreczycki, Table 1). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the blend at 140°C or 141°C as a means of maximizing the energy efficiency of the process. Moreover, Wreczycki discloses the testing of various bitumen blend properties “at 25°C” (see Wreczycki, pages 4-6; and Tables 3 and 4) thus indicating a necessary cooling period of the blend in order to carry out such testing.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wreczycki (J. Wreczycki et al., Bitumen Binders Modified with Sulfur/Organic Copolymers, 15 Materials 1774:1-17 (2022)) in view of Hwang (US 2015/0175502).
With respect to claim 5, see discussion supra at paragraph 9.
Wreczycki does not disclose wherein the sulfur/organic copolymer is one derived from gas oils.
However, Wreczycki discloses wherein the sulfur/organic copolymer is one incorporating dicyclopentadiene (see Wreczycki, Abstract; and Table 1), such compound known to be derivable from the cracking of gas oils (see Hwang, paragraph [0074]).
Therefore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to obtain dicyclopentadiene from cracking of gas oils because such process is known to be suitable for the formation of dicyclopentadiene constituent used in the copolymer of Wreczycki.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wreczycki (J. Wreczycki et al., Bitumen Binders Modified with Sulfur/Organic Copolymers, 15 Materials 1774:1-17 (2022)) in view of Smith (J. A. Smith et al., Crosslinker Copolymerization for Property Control in Inverse Vulcanization, 25 Chem. Eur. J. 10433-10440 (2019)).
With respect to claim 7, see discussion supra at paragraph 9. Smith evidences that copolymers of the same type disclosed in Wreczycki (e.g., sulfur-limonene-dicyclopentadiene) have molecular weights falling within the range of about 16,000-18,000 (see Smith, Fig. 2(c)). Moreover, inasmuch as Wreczycki discloses the same or substantially same bitumen blending process as specified in claim 1, then it follows that the bitumen blend produced by such process will exhibit the same or substantially same characteristics, including kinematic viscosity. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
There is no teaching or suggestion in Wreczycki of at least (1) blending SBPAs and base bitumen at a temperature from 100°C to 140°C, and (2) blending base bitumen with SBPAs selected from poly(thiophene-co-benzothiophene-co-dibenzothiophene) copolymers and sulfur-containing heterocyclic aromatic compounds.
Wreczycki fails to teach or suggest heating the blend of base bitumen and SBPAs at a temperature ranging from 100°C to 140°C.
There is no teaching or suggestion in Wreczycki that any temperature lower than 190°C is an appropriate or workable temperature for modifying bitumen binders. The temperature at which the copolymer forms between the elemental sulfur and the noted compounds described in Table 1 of the reference has no bearing on the temperature range for heating the blend of base bitumen and SBPAs to provide a higher-grade VG bitumen.
With respect to Applicant’s first, second, and third arguments, Examiner submits that a styrene-based copolymer with sulfur constituent satisfies the limitation, or is at the very least suggestive of, of a “sulfur-containing heterocyclic aromatic compound,” Applicant already admitting that styrene is an aromatic. Additionally, Examiner submits that the sulfur/aromatic-based copolymers disclosed in Wreczycki would be suggestive of other sulfur/aromatic copolymers such as the recited poly(thiophene-co-benzothiophene-co-dibenzothiophene) copolymer. The person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Finally, with respect to temperature, it is noted that the sulfur/organic copolymers of Wreczycki were tested over a temperature wide range from 40°C to 450°C (see Wreczycki, page 4, first paragraph), clearly indicating their stability over this range. Such being the case, Examiner again maintains that the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the blend temperature of Wreczycki down to 140°C, such temperature being both the copolymer reaction temperature and a temperature at which the copolymer showed sufficient stability for testing. Such a decrease in blending temperature from 190°C to 140°C would provide an obvious energy cost savings.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax 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 would like assistance 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.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights