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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 18-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Werff (US 5,519,073).
Regarding claims 18-33, van der Werff teaches that asphalt compositions are obtained from distillation of crude oils (column 1, lines 50-65). van der Werff teaches blending asphalt distillates or less severely distilled bottoms with deeply flashed bottoms in order to arrive at a desired viscosity or other desired parameters depending on the planned end of usage of asphalt (column 1, lines 50-65). van der Werff additionally teaches that aromatics or other additives may be mixed with the asphalts to arrive at desired properties (column 1-2).
Examiner notes that crude oil feeds disclosed by van der Werff would encompass the claimed api gravity.
Van der Werff does not disclose the specific viscosity or mixture amounts.
However, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the van der Werff mixing process, in order to achieve the desired properties including viscosity and other parameters. Examiner further notes MPEP 2144.05. Examiner additionally notes that it is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps as claimed from the disclosure of van der Werff.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alexander (US 435,198) – teaches distillation and blending to form asphalt
Derrom (US 307,184) – teaches blending soft and hard bitumen to form asphalt compositions
Loza (US 6,057,390) – teaches blending additives with asphalt to obtain desired properties
Hucker (US 2002/0053531) – teaches PG76 asphalt
Puzic (US 6,414,056) – teaches method for making asphalt compositions
Van Der Werff (US 5,574,095) – teaches PG70 and PG76 asphatls
Gale (US 6,258,255) – teaches a method for enhancing asphalt properties
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771