Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/280,869

RECYCLED CARBON FIBER-REINFORCED POLYOLEFIN COMPOSITION AND USE OF SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 07, 2023
Examiner
CAI, WENWEN
Art Unit
1763
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Mitsui Chemicals Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
509 granted / 850 resolved
-5.1% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
74 currently pending
Career history
924
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
43.6%
+3.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
§112
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 850 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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 § 102 /103 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. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claim(s) 1 -8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mori et al (US 2010/0311892). Mori teaches a composition for a molded article comprising 4.8wt% of a carbodiimide group containing polypropylene, 76 wt% parts of a homo-polypropylene and 19 wt% parts of a carbon fiber (example 3 ). The carbodiimide group containing polypropylene is obtained by reacting a maleic anhydride modified PP with a compound including a carbodiimide group , and has a carbodiimide group content of 27 mmol/100g [0165-0172]. The carbon fiber can be a pitch-based, or a mesophase pitch-based carbon fiber, and the surface treatment is optional [0107, 0100]. Because pitch carbon inherently forms graphitic domains with extended aromatic stack, the pitch based carbon fiber has a surface close to inert graphite after carbonization. Therefore, the claimed O/C ratio is inherent or obvious. It is noted that “a recycled carbon fiber” is a product-by-process claim. Case law holds that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim s 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al (JP2020176244) in view of Mori et al (US 2010/0311892) . In setting forth this rejection a machine translation of JP2020176244 has been relied upon and all citations to paragraph numbers in the discussion below are with respect to the machine translation. Kusama teaches a composition for a molded article comprising 1-50 wt% of a recycled carbon fiber , a polyolefin resin PP, and 0.1-5 wt% of a dispersant C having a basic group as long as it has a moiety that exhibits basicity, such as an imine group [0013, 0017 , 0021, 0031]. Kusama does not teach the dispersant C like claimed modified polyolefin A . However, Mori discloses a similar composition and teaches an aid for filler reinforced resin can improve reinforcing properties and dispersibility of the filler in the composition and enable the molded article to have superior mechanical properties (abstract). The aid is obtained by reacting a maleic anhydride modified PP with a compound including a carbodiimide group, and has a carbodiimide group content of 27 mmol/100g [0165-0172]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the aid of Mori in the composition of Kusama because it exhibits basicity and i mprove s dispersibility of the filler in the composition . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm . 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272- 1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WENWEN CAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 07, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600886
RESINS FOR ADHESIVE BONDING OF FABRICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590201
DEGRADATION PROMOTER FOR ALIPHATIC POLYESTER BIODEGRADABLE RESIN, BIODEGRADABLE RESIN COMPOSITION, AND METHOD FOR PROMOTING DEGRADATION OF ALIPHATIC POLYESTER BIODEGRADABLE RESIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12559592
BRANCHED AMORPHOUS POLYAMIDE (CO)POLYMERS AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552956
PHOTOPOLYMERIZABLE TYPE DENTAL SURFACE COATING COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12534556
CURABLE COMPOSITION, CURED ARTICLE USING SAME, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING CURED ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+19.8%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 850 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month