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
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyant et al. (U.S. Patent Appplication Publication 2011/0301287), in view of Adams et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0099915). Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, Weyant et al., hereafter “Weyant,” show that it is known to carry out a method for preparing a composite construction material (Abstract; 0003), the method comprising combining plastic waste and construction waste thereby forming a waste mixture, wherein the waste mixture consists essentially of the plastic waste and the construction waste (0015-0016, 0019, 0039: construction waste is not specifically defined and aggregate rock is interpreted to meet this limitation since it has been crushed but not used), and curing the waste mixture under oxygen-free conditions thereby forming the composite construction material (0036, 0050). Weyant does not describe identifying a melting point of the plastic waste or heating to the melting point to bind the melted or softened plastic waste to the construction waste. Adams et al., hereafter “Adams,” show that it is known to carry out a method of manufactured a composite which comprises determining a melting point of a plastic (0015, 0020, 0030: polyethylene terephthalate), and curing/heating the plastic to the melting point of the plastic thereby melting the plastic to be viscous, thereby binding the melted plastic to construction waste (0014-0015, 0030: melted plastic permeates between particles of stone). It would have been obvious to incorporate Adams’ melting point determination/heating into Weyant’s process in order to insure that the plastic appropriately bonds/adheres to the construction waste.
Regarding Claim 2, Weyant shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the construction waste comprises aggregate rock (0034, 0039).
Regarding Claim 3, Weyant shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the plastic waste comprises polyethylene terephthalate (0035: polyester).
Regarding Claim 4, Weyant shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not show the plastics of polypropylene. Adams describes that it is known to use polyethylene terephthalate or polypropylene as plastics to be mixed with a stone material (0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Adams’ polypropylene in Weyant’s molding process because there is art recognized suitability for polypropylene to be used in a composite composition with a rock/stone (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claims 5-6, Weyant shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not specifically show the claimed composition. However, he discloses that composition amounts are known to be varied (0036, 0041), and it would have been obvious to choose appropriate values of the claimed amounts because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 7, Weyant shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the step of combining plastic waste and construction waste comprises combining water thereby forming the waste mixture with a water content of 5-20%, and molding the waste mixture prior to curing the waste mixture (0039, 0050).
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyant, in view of Bastian, II et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0282017).
Regarding Claims 11, 13, and 15, Weyant shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the construction waste is aggregate rock (0034, 0039), the plastic waste is polyethylene terephthalate (0035: polyester), but he does not show a particular oxygen-free environment. Bastian, II et al., hereafter “Bastian, II” show that it is known to carry out a method of making a composite article wherein curing occurs in a carbon dioxide vacuum environment (0212). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Bastian, II’s carbon dioxide in Weyant’s process in order to accelerate the curing process (Bastian, II). Weyant does not specifically show the claimed composition amounts. However, he discloses that composition amounts are known to be varied (0036, 0041), and it would have been obvious to choose appropriate values of the claimed amounts because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claims 12, 14, and 16, Weyant shows the method of claims 11, 13, and 15, respectively, above, including a compressive strength of at least 2.4Mpa (0043).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyant, in view of Nosker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0221203). Weyant shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not show application of a radiative cooling coating. Nosker et al., hereafter “Nosker,” show that it is known to carry out a method of forming an article which includes a radiative cooling coating comprising silicon oxide (0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include application of Nosker’s coating in Weyant’s process in order to protect the article from prolonged or excessive conditions and because there is art recognized suitability for using radiative cooling coatings for such a desired outcome (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyant and Nosker, further in view of Van Overmeere et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0244928). Weyant shows the method of claim 18 above, but he does not show a specific radiative cooling coating. Van Overmeere et al., hereafter “Van Overmeere,” show that it is known to carry out a method of forming an article which includes a radiative cooling coating comprising titanium dioxide (0062). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include application of Van Overmeere’s coating in Weyant’s process in order to protect the article from pollutants and because there is art recognized suitability for using radiative cooling coatings for such a desired outcome (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to the claims as-amended which required further consideration and search. Incidentally, the examiner notes that “consist{ing} essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising” (MPEP 2111.03 (III)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights