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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in at least [0080] and Table 1-3 of the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8-9 filed 03/27/2026 with respect to claim 1, have been fully considered however are solely directed to a claim limitation “having an oxygen concentration of 2% by volume or more and less than 10% by volume” introduced in the amendment filed 03/27/2026, which postdates the non-final rejection mailed 12/29/2025.
Upon further search and consideration and as necessitated by the amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 USC § 103 rejections of 12/29/2025 are withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN106750505A English; cited in IDS dated 04/15/2025).
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 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 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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN106750505A English; cited in IDS dated 04/15/2025). Note, the copy of Cheng et al. CN106750505A) provided by Applicant on 04/15/2026 only contains an English abstract. All citations below are from the full translation provided by Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a method of recovering carbon fibers from waste carbon fiber materials by contacting the waste carbon fiber materials with an oxide semiconductor (Abstract; Claims; Pg. 2, Contents of the Invention). Cheng teaches the carbon fiber waste materials include PET (polyethylene terephthalate), PP (polypropylene), PE (polyethylene), PVC (polyvinylchloride), PS (polystyrene), or ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) thermoplastic matrices, while the oxide semiconductors include Cr2O3, TiO2, Fe2O3, ZnO, NiO, CuO, or Cu2O (Abstract; Claims ; Pg. 2, Contents of the Invention). Cheng teaches the method is carried out by placing the oxide semiconductor on a distribution plate in a calciner, introducing oxygen with a concentration of 5 vol.% to 15 vol.% into the calciner chamber containing the oxide semiconductor, heating the chamber to 350-500 °C, introducing the waste carbon fiber material via a feed port such that the oxide semiconductor and the plastic come in contact, carrying out a decomposition of the waste carbon fiber material (Pg. 2, Contents of the Invention). Cheng teaching the semiconductor and the waste carbon fiber materials are heated together at 350-500 °C is equivalent to “heating the plastic-containing material to a first surface temperature in the presence of a semiconductor material” and satisfies the “first surface temperature” limitation. 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 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Cheng (5 vol.% to 15 vol.% oxygen) overlaps with the claimed range (2% by volume or more and less than 10% by volume oxygen). Therefore, the range in Cheng renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1 and Cheng further teaches the waste carbon fiber material is introduced without heating into the calcining chamber (Pg. 3, Detailed Description; Pg. 3-4, Embodiments). Cheng teaches the oxygen gas is introduced in the calciner chamber prior to adding plastic (Claims; Pg. 2, Contents of the Invention; Pg. 3, Detailed Description). In this way, Cheng teaches the waste carbon fiber material is introduced at approximately room temperature and is introduced after oxygen is introduced into the calciner chamber. Cheng teaching the waste carbon fiber material is not heated is at least a temperature less than the furnace temperature, that is taught as being heated at 350-500 °C in Cheng. 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 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Cheng (plastic at approximately room temperature while oxygen is introduced in the furnace) overlaps with the claimed range (surface temperature of the plastic is less than 300 °C). Therefore, the range in Cheng renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1 and Cheng teaches the semiconductor and the waste carbon fiber materials are heated together at 350-500 °C(Claims; Pg. 2, Contents of the Invention; Pg. 3, Detailed Description). As noted above, this is equivalent to “heating the plastic-containing material to a first surface temperature in the presence of a semiconductor material” and satisfies the “first surface temperature” limitation. 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 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Cheng (350-500 °C) overlaps with the claimed range (300 to 600 °C). Therefore, the range in Cheng renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1 and Cheng further teaches the thermal oxide semiconductor is in a state of suspension and high-speed movement such that it is in full and uniform contact with the carbon fiber reinforced resin-based composite material to be decomposed (Pg. 2, Contents of the Invention). Cheng teaching the semiconductor material is in “full and uniform contact” with the waste carbon fiber to be decomposed would provide a distance between the waste and semiconductor of about 0 mm (i.e. particles in direct contact), meeting the limitation required by the claim of “50 mm or less.”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN106750505A English; cited in IDS dated 04/15/2025) in view of Yang et al. (CN111518312A English).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires “wherein the low oxygen concentration gas is a mixed gas of air and a dilution gas” to which Cheng is silent.
Yang teaches a method of recovering carbon fibers from composite materials by pyrolysis where the pyrolysis is conducted in an atmosphere containing 1-8% oxygen content, and the low-oxygen environment of 1-8% is produced by mixing nitrogen or helium gas with air (Abstract; Claim 1; Pg. 4-5, Examples 1-8).
Advantageously, providing an oxygen content from 1-8% by mixing air and other gases avoids depositing too much carbon on the outer layer that effects the consistency of further reactions while also avoiding safety hazards brought by high oxygen concentrations (Pg. 4, par. 3-5).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate an oxygen atmosphere containing 1-8% oxygen by mixing air with other gases in the process of Cheng in order to avoid carbon deposits that effect further reactions and to avoid safety hazards associated with oxygen concentrations over 8%, as taught by Yang.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN106750505A English; cited in IDS dated 04/15/2025) in view of Sui et al. (US20200002619A1; cited in IDS dated 04/15/2025) as evidenced by Erickson (Michigan News, 2015).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires “heating the plastic-containing material, which has been subjected to the heat treatment at the first surface temperature, in the presence of a semiconductor material in an atmosphere having an oxygen concentration of 10 % by volume or more,” to which Cheng does not teach performing an additional heat step after performing the first.
Sui teaches a method for recovering carbon fibers from within composite material waste by coating a SO42-/TiO2 solid acid powder onto a surface of the composite material waste prior to performing pyrolysis in an inert environment and subsequently oxidizing the pyrolyzed resin in an air environment (Abstract; Fig. 1). Sui teaches the composite material waste includes plastic ([0028]-[0029]), where the method aims to degrade the composite waste material in order to recover the carbon fiber reinforced resin ([0041]). Sui teaches the composite waste material was placed in a pyrolysis furnace after uniformly spraying the material with a SO42-/TiO2 powder and was heated to between 500-700 °C ([0034]; [0043]-[0044]; [0052]). Sui teaches that following heating the composite waste material coated with SO42-/TiO2 in a nitrogen environment free of oxygen, the reactor was subsequently filled with air and the material was further heated ([0026]; [0035]; [0052]). Air is known by skilled artisans to contain about 21% oxygen by volume, as taught by Erickson (Pg. 1). 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 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Sui (about 21% oxygen by volume) overlaps with the claimed range (oxygen 10% by volume or more). Therefore, the range in Sui renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, performing the treatment of Sui, including the second heat treatment, provides full decomposition of the resin matrix (i.e. material being decomposed) and provides carbon fibers with a clean surface and structural integrity intact ([0036]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform an additional heating step in the presence of about 21% oxygen in the method of Cheng in order to fully decompose the resin matrix while providing carbon fibers with a clean surface and structural integrity intact, as taught by Sui.
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 Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/J.W.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights