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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, directed to claims 18-30, in the reply filed on 08/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/07/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites the limitation, “wherein modified bitumen comprises,” in line 1 and contains a minor grammatical error. The limitation should read as, “wherein the modified bitumen comprises.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 18-22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karnati et al. (Construction and Building Materials 2021, 266, 121000; cited on IDS).
With regard to claim 18, Karnati et al. teaches a method of combining a modifier comprising bio-carbon (i.e. bio-binder) with silicate-containing particles (i.e. silica nanoparticles) to yield bio-grafted silica particles (pp. 2, right col., lines 49-59). The bio-grafted silica nanoparticles are described as having up to a 2 nm surface coating of bio-binder (pp. 3, right col., lines 31-33), reading to the limitation that the modifier at least partially coats each particle. Karnati et al. further teaches the bio-grafted silica particles are combined with bitumen to yield a modified bitumen (pp. 2, right col., lines 20-23).
With regard to claim 19, Karnati et al. teaches that the bio-grafted silica particles (i.e. BB-SNPS) were added at a 4 wt% loading to the bitumen (pp. 2, right col., lines 20-23), which is within the instantly claimed range of 0.5-5 wt%.
With regard to claims 20 and 21, Karnati et al. teach that the silicate-containing particles are commercial silica nanoparticles (pp. 2, left col., lines 45-48).
With regard to claim 22, Karnati et al. teaches that the commercial silica nanoparticles employed in the method have an average individual size of 12 nm (pp. 2, left col., lines 45-48), which is within the instantly claimed diameter range of about 5-50 nm.
With regard to claim 25, Karnati et al. teaches that the bio-binder developed from manure comprises a complex mix of organic compounds (pp. 2, left col., lines 26-29 & pp. 3, right col., lines 10-11). Karnati et al. teach that the bio-binder comprises aromatic functional groups (pp. 3, right col., lines 15-19), polar functional groups (e.g. amines and hydroxyls; pp. 3, left col., lines 11-14 & 19-21), and polar aromatic functional groups (i.e. phenol, pp. 3, right col., line 21) as determined by FTIR analysis.
With regard to claim 26, Karnati et al. teach that the bio-carbon (i.e. bio-binder) is derived from animal biomass (i.e. manure, pp. 2, left col., lines 49-59).
With regard to claim 27, Karnati et al. teach that the bio-carbon (i.e. bio-binder) is derived from animal biomass comprising swine manure (i.e. manure, pp. 2, left col., lines 49-59).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Karnati et al. as applied to claim 21 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Karnati et al. as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Sankar et al. (Ceramics International 2016, 42, pp. 4875-4885).
With regard to claims 23 and 24, the recited limitations further define the bio-silica of claim 21 which is not required in the composition as it is one of a list of silica-comprising particles. As Karnati et al. teaches silica nanoparticles as the silica-comprising particles used to make bio-graft silica particles, Karnati et al. anticipates claims 23 and 24.
However, it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of making modified bitumen taught by Karnati et al. by replacing the silica nanoparticles with nanoparticles of bio-silica derived from rice husks as taught by Sankar et al.
Sankar et al. teaches amorphous, mesoporous silica nanoparticle powders synthesized from sticky, red, and brown rice husk ash (RHA; pp. 4876, Section 2.2). The obtained nanoparticle powders have a uniform surface morphology with average particle sizes of 50 nm (sticky RHA), 20 nm (red RHA), and 5-10 nm (brown RHA) based upon the specific rice husk ash used (pp. 4878, left col., lines 4-12 & pp. 4879, right col., lines 4-16). Additionally, the silica nanoparticles had BET-determined surface areas of 7.5 (sticky RHA), 201.5 (red RHA) and 247.2 (brown RHA) m2/g (pp. 4881, right col., lines 1-8). Sankar et al. teaches that the synthesis and use of nanostructured silica powders from rice husk is an important means to valorize a major agricultural waste stream (pp. 4875, left col., lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Karnati et al. to replace the commercial silica nanoparticles with rice husk ash derived silica nanoparticles (i.e. the instantly claimed bio-silica of claim 23 & bio-silica derived from rice hull of claim 24) because they have equivalent physical characteristics relevant to adsorption (see above citations and Karnati et al., Section 2.1) and rice-husk derived silica has the economic advantage over commercial synthetic silica of valorizing a major waste stream. Therefore, the limitations of claims 23 and 24 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. See MPEP § 2144.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnati et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Hosseinnezhad et al. (RCS Adv. 2015, 5(92), pp. 75519-75527; cited on IDS).
With regard to claim 28, Karnati et al. does not teach that the bio-carbon used to yield bio-grafted silica particles is derived from wood pellets. However, Hosseinnezhad et al. teaches a bio-oil derived from wood pellets as a possible synthetic asphalt binder (pp. 75520, left col., lines 43-48). Hosseinnezhad et al. teaches that the bio-oil derived from wood pellets had the second lowest amount of asphaltenes, which contribute to asphalt oxidation (pp. 75522, right col., lines 39-46), had a high similarity in physical characteristics to vacuum gas oil (pp. 75523, right col., lines 20-24), and of the four bio-oils examined had the lowest surface tension which could be indicative of high promotion of adhesion as a binder (pp. 75525, right col., lines 10-19). While Hosseinnezhad et al. teaches that bio-oil derived from wood pellets has different physiochemical properties from swine manure-derived bio-oil (pp. 75522, left col., lines 38-41), it does suggest that bio-oil derived from wood pellets could be a suitable additive in asphalt (pp. 75526, right col., lines 1-7). Therefore, as Hosseinnezhad et al. suggests wood pellet-derived bio-oil and swine manure-derived bio-oil as alternatives in asphalt manufacturing and teaches advantageous rheological properties of wood pellet-derived bio-oil in asphalt, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of Karnati et al. by replacing the swine manure-derived biomass with wood pellet-derived biomass in the production of modified bitumen due to the art-recognized suitability of wood pellet-derived bio-oil as an asphalt/bitumen additive. See § MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnati et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of de Wild et al. (Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 2012, 93, pp. 95-103).
With regard to claim 29, Karnati et al. does not teach that bio-carbon used to yield bio-grafted silica particles comprises one or more of 2,6-dimethoxyphenol, furfural, 3-methoxy-1,2-cyclopentanedione, and 2-(4-hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxyphenyl)acetaldehyde. However, de Wild et al. teaches a method of producing a bio-carbon (i.e. a phenolic bio-oil) from wheat straw (pp. 1, Abstract & pp. 3-5, Section 2.2 & Section 2.4). De Wild et al. teaches that the produced bio-oil comprises large fractions of 2,6-dimethoxyphenol as instantly claimed (pp. 101, left col., lines 52-55 & pp. 102, Table 4, ‘Wheat straw organosolv lignin A & B’). De Wild et al. further teaches that the bio-oil component produced from wheat straw can be used as a modifier for petrochemical bitumen (pp. 97, left col., lines 12-14). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of Karnati et al. by replacing the swine-manure derived bio-carbon taught by Karnati et al. with the wheat straw-derived bio-carbon of de Wild et al. (which comprises 2,6-dimethoxyphenol) because the two biomass sources are comprised of similar phenolic compounds (see FTIR analysis of bio-binder, Karnati et al. pp. 3 & de Wild et al. Table 4) and there is art-recognized suitability for de Wild et al.’s bio-oil as part of a bitumen additive. See § MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnati et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Verbist et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20150307712 A1, published 29 October 2015).
With regard to claim 30, Karnati et al. does not explicitly teach a method of making modified bitumen and combining said modified bitumen with aggregate to form asphalt as instantly claimed. However, Karnati et al. mentions numerous times that the taught modified bitumen is intended as an economical alternative to silane coupling agents to improve bitumen performance in asphalt (see pp. 1, Abstract; right col., lines 1-8; pp. 2, lines 36-28). Karnati et al. further concludes that the taught modified bitumen would be highly effective at improving the longevity of pavement (pp. 7, left col., lines 22-24).
Furthermore, Verbist et al. teaches a method of forming asphalt by heating and mixing bitumen, an aggregate, and additives [0009]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Karnati et al. by adding the step of mixing the modified bitumen with an aggregate to yield an asphalt as taught by Verbist et al. because Karnati et al. suggests that the modified bitumen can be used as an improved binder in asphalt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chinese Patent Publication No. CN109865505A, published 2019, which discloses a method of producing silica particles coated with a biomass-derived carbon material for use as an adsorbent.
Li et al. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochemical and Eng. Aspects 2021, 295, pp. 157-160, which discloses a method of producing silica particles coated with a rice husk-derived biochar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINA JOHNSON can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights