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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments have not explained how the argued organic matter remaining on the recovered glass fiber of the instant application differs from the incineration of the crushed, pulverized FRP products of Kasai.
Applicant argues that Kasai’s method teaches of incinerating and melting the pulverized recovered glass fiber at the same time which would invalidate the separate steps of the instant application. This is not persuasive because Kasai is clear that the incinerating preheats the pulverized recovered glass fiber (Line 60) as well as the option of incinerating the recovered glass fiber by itself (Line 57) followed by mixing after (Line 63). Applicant’s arguments are read on by the Kasai reference teaching rearrangement of the method steps as suitable embodiments.
Applicant similarly argues DeGreve is not compatible with Kasai for the same reason. DeGreve is keenly aware of the organic matter stuck on the recovered glass (Col. 1 Line 59-Col. 2 Line 40) wherein one of the known options in the art is to first remove organic materials prior to the melting (Col. 2 Line 35-38). DeGreve teaches of milled recovered fibers (reading on pulverized) and the recovered fibers of 1-3 wt% ignition loss amount (Col. 5 Line 6-24) wherein the oxidized atmosphere in their melting step removes all the organic matter (Col. 11 Line 60-63).
As such, the 103 rejection is amended to include the pulverizing step. The Examiner maintains the mixing step citation as correct wherein the mixing is accomplished after pulverizing as taught by Kasai.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai et al (JP-H1085704-A, English translation provided by Espacenet) and further in view of Hanvey et al (US-6199778-B1) and DeGreve et al (US-5352258-A).
Regarding claim 1, Kasai teaches of a method for melting glass raw material (Line 60-72), the method comprising: recovering glass fiber from glass fiber-reinforced resin molded product (Line 48-55), pulverizing the recovered glass fiber (Line 54, 111), mixing the pulverized recovered glass fiber and a glass fiber mineral material to obtain a glass raw material (Line 60-63), melting the glass raw material to form molten glass (Line 70-72), and spinning the molten glass to form glass fiber (Line 120-122).
Kasai teaches that the recovered glass fiber has carbon content of 0.5% by mass or less (Line 74-75). Kasai does not expressly state this as “an ignition loss amount”. In the same field of endeavor, Hanvey teaches of recovering glass fibers from cured glass fiber products of less than about 5% weight and preferably less than about 1% weight cured matrix material (Col. 6 Line 44-59) with a working example of 0.35% by mass loss on ignition (Col. 22 Line 21-22). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use recovered glass fiber with an ignition loss amount that falls within the instantly claimed range as known workable range in the recovering glass fiber from glass fiber-reinforced resin product art. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05(I) for overlapping ranges.
Kasai teaches the recovered glass fibers have a length of 5 cm, preferably 1 cm, or less (Line 56-57). Kasai does not expressly teach of the length of the spun glass fiber (Line 120-122). In related recycling of waste fiber art (Col. 2 Line 52-65), DeGreve teaches of recycling waste glass fibers (Col. 2 Line 52-65) to produce continuous fibers (Col. 8 Line 61) from a melt spun method (Col. 10 Line 60-Col. 11 Line 2). Though DeGreve does not expressly teach the nominal length of their meltspun fiber, Fig. 1/continuous fibers 45 shows the continuous nature of the produced fiber prior to being chopped into smaller pieces. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to melt spin fiber to lengths greater than 1000 m as there are known apparati in the art to spin continuous lengths. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claims 2-3, depending from claim 1, Kasai teaches a 20% by mass of recovered glass fiber used for their entire glass raw material (Line 110-115). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the recovered glass fiber range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claims 4-5, depending from claim 1, Hanvey teaches of working examples with 0.0% and 0.35% by mass loss on ignition (Col. 22 Line 21-22/64-65). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the loss on ignition of the recovered glass fiber that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-5496392-A, US-5709728-A, WO-2021004601-A1, US-20070289336-A1 teach recycling waste material into mineral wool
JP-H11221544-A, JP-2010000458-A, JP=2014047101-A, WO-2019207259-A1 teach pyrolysis of waste glass fiber with organic/carbonaceous adherants
US-20040173239-A1 teaches recycling glass fibres from composite material by pyrolysis into fiber reinforced thermoplastic molded product
US-20200140315-A1 teaches recycling glass fiber-reinforced polymer composites by pyrolyzing the composite in molten salt
JP-H06234879-A teaches recycling fiber-reinforced resin product
JP-H0388678-A teaches meltspinning continuous lengths of glass fiber from
KR-20140021854-A, US-20150232373-A1, KR-101964114-B1 teaches recycling fiberglass products and melting the glass from the products to be reused in a meltspinning process
US-20050223752-A1 teaches using rocks to generate continuous silicate glass fibers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights