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 .
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments filed on 08/31/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-17 and 20-22 are pending.
Claims 18-19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-17 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 21-22 are new claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaTorre et al. (US 2019/0186140 A1) in view of Fader (US 2010/0307380 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 17, LaTorre teaches a roofing shingle using a fiberglass mat (Paragraph 0031) and a filled asphalt mix (Abstract). LaTorre teaches the filled asphalt mix comprising an asphalt blend and a filler. (Paragraph 0042; Claim 12 of LaTorre). LaTorre teaches the asphalt blend comprises asphalt and a first polymer additive. (Claims 4 and 10 of LaTorre). LaTorre teaches the filled asphalt mix can have a softening point of 185 to about 250 degrees F. (Paragraph 0116). This overlaps the claimed range of at least 250 degrees F. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
LaTorre does not specifically teach the asphalt blend includes carbon black.
Fader teaches the inclusion of carbon black into asphalt mixture to further improves the durability of the asphalt composition. (Paragraph 0031, 0035). Fader teaches the carbon black can comprise about 1 to about 20 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range. Fader teaches the carbon black have a size about less than or equal to 4 microns. (Paragraph 0046), which overlaps the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add carbon black in the claimed range to the asphalt composition of LaTorre for further durability improvements.
Regarding Claim 2-3, LaTorre teaches using PG 64-22 asphalt, a paving grade asphalt. (Paragraph 0097).
Regarding Claim 4, Fader teaches using recycled/reclaimed carbon black. (Paragraph 0035)
Regarding Claim 5, Fader teaches the carbon black have a size about less than or equal to 4 microns. (Paragraph 0046). Carbon black is approximately a near-sphere shape, which would yield a cross-sectional area of 12.6 microns squared or less. These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 6, LaTorre and Fader do not specifically teach the NAF of the asphalt mix. However, given that LaTorre and Fader teach the same composition as the claimed invention, it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to expect the combination of LaTorre and Fader would also inherently have the same NAF range as the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, LaTorre teaches the filled asphalt mix can have a softening point of 185 to about 250 degrees F. (Paragraph 0116). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9, LaTorre teaches the filled asphalt mix has a penetration at 77 degrees F of 16 to 22 dmm (Paragraph 0092) or 14 and 18 dmm (Paragraph 0143-0144).
Regarding Claims 8 and 10, LaTorre does not specifically teach the claimed penetration depths. However, given that LaTorre and Fader teach the same composition as the claimed invention, it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to expect the combination of LaTorre and Fader would also inherently have the same penetration range as the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 12, LaTorre teaches the filled asphalt mix can have a weatherability of greater than 60 cycles (days). (Paragraph 0092) This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 13, LaTorre teaches the first polymer additive can be SBS. (Paragraph 0099).
Regarding Claim 14, LaTorre teaches filled asphalt mix can include a wax. (Paragraph 0093).
Regarding Claim 20, LaTorre teaches a package of roof shingles of Claim 19. (Paragraph 0059).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaTorre and Fader, in further view of Hemmings et al. (US 2002/0124775 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, LaTorre teaches the viscosity of the blend, but does not specifically teach the viscosity range of the filled asphalt mix.
Hemmings teaches a filled asphalt mix for shingles (Abstract; 0003). Hemmings teaches having an asphalt mix having a viscosity of below 7000 centipoise at 400 degrees F ensures the asphalt can be effectively processed into a composite. (Paragraph 0035). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the viscosity of LaTorre to the claimed viscosity range to ensure effective processing of the asphalt into a shingle
Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaTorre and Fader, in further view of D’Amato et al. (US 2014/0046102 A1).
Regarding Claim 15-16, LaTorre teaches the wax can be paraffin wax, polypropylene wax, and polyethylene wax. (Paragraph 0105). LaTorre does not specifically teach the wax is recycled wax.
D’Amato teaches using recycled polyethylene wax for use in various compositions (Abstract) and teaches the use of recycled wax is cheaper, due to cheaper input material. (Paragraph 0016). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use recycled wax due in LaTorre for a cheaper product.
Claims 1, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaTorre in view of Fader.
Regarding Claim 1, 21 and 22, LaTorre teaches a roofing shingle using a fiberglass mat (Paragraph 0031) and a filled asphalt mix (Abstract). LaTorre teaches the filled asphalt mix comprising an asphalt blend and a filler. (Paragraph 0042; Claim 12 of LaTorre). LaTorre teaches the asphalt blend comprises asphalt and a first polymer additive. (Claims 4 and 10 of LaTorre). LaTorre teaches the filled asphalt mix can have a softening point of 185 to about 250 degrees F. (Paragraph 0116). This overlaps the claimed range of at least 250 degrees F. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
LaTorre does not specifically teach the asphalt blend includes carbon black.
Fader teaches the inclusion of pyrolyzed carbon, carbon black, into asphalt mixture to further improves the durability of the asphalt composition. (Paragraph 0031, 0035, 0043). Fader teaches this carbon black can have a diameter of 8 to 70 microns, which leads to an approximate cross section of 50 to 3848 square microns. (Paragraph 0043-0045), which overlaps the claimed ranges. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add carbon black of the claimed size in the claimed range to the asphalt composition of LaTorre for further durability improvements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The prior §112 rejections have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments.
The prior §103 rejections over LaTorre and Jones have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that LaTorre and Fader cannot be combined, as LaTorre is directed to asphalt shingles and Fader is directed to asphalt cement and are non-analogous art. This argument is found unpersuasive. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). (MPEP §2141.01(a)). Here, LaTorre first teaches blends of paving grade asphalt blends (Paragraph 0094), thus LaTorre would recognize asphalt cements compositions, such as those taught by Fader, are well within the field of endeavor of asphalt compositions for roofing shingles. In addition, both LaTorre and Fader are directed to creating a stronger asphalt composition, which makes Fader a reference reasonably pertinent to the problem of LaTorre.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
