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 I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/19/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (two instances within the listing of references). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “asurface” should be “a surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 depends on itself. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 2 is construed as if it depended from claim 1.
As claims 3 and 4 depend upon claim 2, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim 5 recites “wherein said virgin thermosetting resin is polyurethane or another resin”. It is unclear whether “another resin” is meant to be resin other than polyurethane or if it is meant to be in reference to some other material (e.g. a resin other than that within the thermosetting composite).
Claim 6 recites “employing a pre-softening step comprising employing elevated pressures and temperatures for grafting or synthesizing by sequential or simultaneous polymerization two immiscible polymers to manufacture cross-linking polymer systems for forming interpenetrating polymer networks”. It is generally unclear whether the “grafting or synthesizing…”, “manufacture cross-linking polymer systems”, and “forming interpenetrating polymer networks” features are required method steps or if only employing “elevated pressures and temperatures” is being required with the later recitations merely indicating the purpose of such. It is unclear what relationship, if any, the interpenetrating polymer network alluded to within claim 6 has with respect to that formed in claim 1. Are they one in the same? It is also unclear what the “elevated” temperatures and pressures are with respect to. Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim is construed as requiring the creation of two immiscible polymers within the composite material prior to the softening step.
Claim 7 recites the range “greater than 20 degrees Centigrade up to and greater than 400 degrees Centigrade”. It is unclear how an upper limit can be both “up to” and “greater than” 400 degrees Centigrade simultaneously. It is uncertain whether the intended scope of the claim is simply meant to be “greater than 20 degrees Centigrade”. See MPEP 2173.05(c)(1).
Claim 7 recites the range “greater than atmospheric pressure to greater than 3000 psi”. It is unclear what upper limit (if any) is intended. It is unclear what is meant or implied by the inclusion of 3000 psi (i.e. whether the intended scope of the claim is simply meant to be “greater than atmospheric pressure”). See MPEP 2173.05(c)(1).
Claim 7 recites the range “from two seconds to greater than 24 hours”. It is unclear what upper limit (if any) is intended. It is unclear what is meant or implied by the inclusion of 24 hours (i.e. whether the intended scope of the claim is simply meant to be “at least two seconds”). See MPEP 2173.05(c)(1).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
To the extent claim 2 is meant to be dependent from claim 1, claim 2 recites “wherein said partial solvolysis is carried out using a solvent”. Solvolysis by definition is carried out using a solvent. Therefore, claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
To the extent “another resin” of claim 5 is referring to resins other than polyurethane, any feasible thermosetting resin would be “polyurethane or another resin”. Accordingly, claim 5 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 explicitly requires infusing reshaped composite with a virgin thermosetting resin. Claim 8, which depends upon claim 1, requires infusing the reshaped composites with glass fiber wrapping or other fibers “in place of said virgin thermosetting resin”. Since claim 1 requires virgin thermosetting resin and claim 8 does not, claim 8 fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qi (US 2019/0322835 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Qi teaches methods of recycling fiber-reinforced thermoset composites (¶ 16). Qi teaches contacting composite containing scratches/dents with solvent/catalyst to partially dissolve at least a portion or all of the thermoset polymer matrix (reading on partial solvolysis/softening) (¶ 95, 96, 99). Since a portion of the thermoset is dissolved/removed, the softened thermoset has been reshaped/resized. Qi teaches a powder of fresh thermoset is applied to the surface, dissolved in the solvent, and then the solvent is evaporated to ultimately re-form the polymer matrix with fresh thermoset incorporated therein (¶ 96-97, 177), reading on infusing the composite with virgin thermoset resin to form a recycled/remanufactured composite material having an interpenetrated polymer network. The remaining limitations of the claim are optional and therefore met by the disclosure of Qi.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Qi teaches alcohol solvents, inclusive of glycols and benzyl alcohol (¶ 25).
Regarding Claim 5, whatever resin Qi uses is construed as an “another resin” with respect to polyurethanes.
Regarding Claim 7, Qi teaches solvolysis takes place with elevated temperatures for a period of time (¶ 96, 97), specifically 120-250 degrees C and 1-10 hours (¶ 98-99). Qi teaches embodiments where thermoset is placed in mold, solvent is added, the mold covered to avoid solvent evaporation, and heated (¶ 178). Since a closed container is heated, the pressure within the mold is inferred to be higher than atmospheric pressure.
Regarding Claim 9, Qi teaches putting scratches on the composite surface prior to solvent treatment (¶ 177, Figure 18A).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi (US 2019/0322835 A1).
Qi teaches methods of recycling fiber-reinforced thermoset composites (¶ 16). Qi teaches contacting the composite with solvent/catalyst to partially dissolve at least a portion or all of the thermoset polymer matrix (reading on partial solvolysis/softening) (¶ 96, 99). Since a portion of the thermoset if dissolved/removed, the softened thermoset has been reshaped/resized. Qi teaches a powder of fresh thermoset is applied to the surface, dissolved in the solvent, and then the solvent is evaporated to ultimately re-form the polymer matrix with fresh thermoset incorporated therein (¶ 96-97, 177), reading on infusing the composite with virgin thermoset resin to form a recycled/remanufactured composite material having an interpenetrated polymer network. The remaining limitations of the claim are optional and therefore met by the disclosure of Qi.
Regarding Claim 7, Qi teaches solvolysis takes place with elevated temperatures for a period of time (¶ 96, 97), specifically 120-250 degrees C and 1-10 hours (¶ 98-99). Qi teaches embodiments where thermoset is placed in mold, solvent is added, the mold covered to avoid solvent evaporation, and heated (¶ 178). To the extent the pressure within the mold is not above atmospheric pressure, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close to the extent the same properties/results would be expected. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the present case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the same solvolysis results would occur should pressures just above atmospheric pressure be utilized within the protocols of Qi.
Regarding Claim 10, Qi teaches embodiments where infusion of thermoset occurs with solvent evaporation/polymerization (¶ 178), specifically by removing a cover from a mold and heating over a time span of 10 hours to promote evaporation/polymerization. While not indicated to take place in vacuo, Qi teaches repolymerization may occur under vacuum conditions so as to avoid significant oxidation due to high temperature heating over long periods (¶ 113). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a vacuum assisted infusion process within the protocols of Qi because doing so would avoid oxidation as taught by Qi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759