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 Amendments
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 1, 4, and 8 on 02/12/2026.
The claim objection and 112(b) rejections previously presented are withdrawn in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The rejection below addresses the amended claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (PG-PUB 2019/0099921) in view of Miyoshi (JP 2020037978, Machine translation relied upon) and Imbert (WO 2024/002641).
Regarding claim 4, Kano teaches a method, the method being a method of recycling a reinforcing fiber, the method comprising:
a step of providing a tank (Figure 5) including a liner, a CFRP layer, and GFRP layer [0034]-[0038], [0057]; wherein the CFRP layer is a first protective layer disposed on an outer peripheral surface of the liner and capable of being wound with a resin-impregnated fiber bundle; wherein the CGRP is a second protective layer disposed on the first protective layer.
Kano teaches a step of removing a portion of the second protective layer and exposing a winding end of a resin-impregnated fiber bundle by cutting through the GFRP layer and removing the CFRP layer for recycling (Figure 5 and [0043]-[0044]). Kano teaches both the CFRP layer and GFRP are formed by wound impregnated fibers [0035]-[0036].
Kano does not teach:
(1) the second protective layer is a layer created by curing a portion of the first matrix resin contained in the first protective layer while the portion bleeds out;
(2) a step of exposing a winding end of resin-impregnated fiber bundle in the second protective layer;
a step of peeling a winding end of the resin-impregnated fiber bundle; and
a step of pulling the winding end that is peeled and drawing the resin
impregnated fiber bundle; and
(3) the portion of the second layer is removed by laser treatment.
As to (1), Miyoshi teaches a high-pressure tank where the outer protective layer is composed of matrix that oozes out from a first protective layer [0020]-[0021]. Miyoshi teaches a reinforcing layer between a first protective layer and liner (Figure 1, item 4 and [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the process of Kano to used tanks of Miyoshi for recycling purposes because Kano provides motivation for recovering fiber layers from composites, including tanks. As suggested by Kano, there are benefits to recovering and recycling fibers, including saving resources, making it desirable to recycle various used tanks, including the tank of Miyoshi.
As to (2) and (3), Imbert teaches a method of recycling fibers in a composite by first detaching a portion of the fiber to allow for peeling (Page 7, ln 12-20). Imbert teaches using a heating device and detachment device (Page 7, ln 21- 8, ln 25), wherein the detachment device removes a portion of the matrix (i.e., the second layer) to expose the underlayers of fiber and matrix (Page 10, ln 22- Page 11, ln 22). Imbert teaches a cutting device can be used to cut off a portion of the fiber layer to expose an end of the fiber layer (Page 11, ln 12 - Page 12, ln 18). Imbert teaches during the removal process, the resin in the fiber composite layer may be partially removed by laser treatment (Page 8, ln 12-26 and Page 12, ln 4-18). Imbert teaches preserving the continuous fibers of the composite by recovering large parts of the fiber layer or the entire fiber layer for maximal recycling, thereby peeling the winding end of the fiber bundle and pulling the continuous fiber bundle (Page 5, ln 24- Page 6, ln 12 and Page 14, ln 12-25).
Imbert teaches different fibers, including glass fibers and carbon fibers can be recycled (Page 5, ln 29-Page 6, ln 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kano with recycling the glass fibers in the second protective layer, as suggested by Imbert, for the benefit of recycling resources for other applications.
Both Kano and Imbert are drawn to the same field of endeavor of fiber recycling on tanks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kano with the technique of continuous fiber layer removal as taught by Imbert, to provide the benefit of preserving the length and mechanical properties of the fibers as taught by Imbert.
Accordingly, Kano in view of Imbert would include the step of detaching a portion of the second protective layer to expose a winding end of the resin-impregnated fiber bundle and peeling and pulling the winding end to draw the resin-impregnated fiber bundle ready for further processing.
Regarding claim 8, Kano teaches a method, the method being a method of recycling a reinforcing fiber, the method comprising:
a step of providing a tank (Figure 5) including a liner, a CFRP layer, and GFRP layer [0034]-[0038], [0057]; wherein the CFRP layer is a first protective layer disposed on an outer peripheral surface of the liner and capable of being wound with a resin-impregnated fiber bundle; wherein the CGRP is a second protective layer disposed on the first protective layer [0035]-[0036];
a step of removing a second layer (i.e., including a portion of a second layer) to expose the resin-impregnated bundle and removing the resin-impregnated bundle for recycling (Figure 5 and [0043]-[0044]),
wherein the portion of the second layer is removed by contacting a solution with the layer.
Kano does not teach:
(1) the second protective layer is a layer created by curing a portion of the first matrix resin contained in the first protective layer while the portion bleeds out; and
(2) a step of exposing a winding end of resin-impregnated fiber bundle in the second protective layer;
a step of peeling a winding end of the resin-impregnated fiber bundle; and
a step of pulling the winding end that is peeled and drawing the resin
impregnated fiber bundle.
As to (1), Miyoshi teaches a high-pressure tank where the outer protective layer is composed of matrix that oozes out from a first protective layer [0020]-[0021]. Miyoshi teaches a reinforcing layer between a first protective layer and liner (Figure 1, item 4 and [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the process of Kano to used tanks of Miyoshi for recycling purposes because Kano provides motivation for recovering fiber layers from composites, including tanks. As suggested by Kano, there are benefits to recovering and recycling fibers, including saving resources, making it desirable to recycle various used tanks, including the tank of Miyoshi.
As to (2), Imbert teaches a method of recycling fibers in a composite by first detaching a portion of the fiber to allow for peeling (Page 7, ln 12-20). Imbert teaches using a heating device and detachment device (Page 7, ln 21- 8, ln 25), wherein the detachment device removes a portion of the matrix (i.e., the second layer) to expose the underlayers of fiber and matrix (Page 10, ln 22- Page 11, ln 22). Imbert teaches a cutting device can be used to cut off a portion of the fiber layer to expose an end of the fiber layer (Page 11, ln 12 - Page 12, ln 18). Imbert teaches during the removal process, the resin in the fiber composite layer may be partially removed by laser treatment (Page 8, ln 12-26 and Page 12, ln 4-18). Imbert teaches preserving the continuous fibers of the composite by recovering large parts of the fiber layer or the entire fiber layer for maximal recycling, thereby peeling the winding end of the fiber bundle and pulling the continuous fiber bundle (Page 5, ln 24- Page 6, ln 12 and Page 14, ln 12-25).
Imbert teaches different fibers, including glass fibers and carbon fibers can be recycled (Page 5, ln 29-Page 6, ln 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kano with recycling the glass fibers in the second protective layer, as suggested by Imbert, for the benefit of recycling resources for other applications.
Both Kano and Imbert are drawn to the same field of endeavor of fiber recycling on tanks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kano with the technique of continuous fiber layer removal as taught by Imbert, to provide the benefit of preserving the length and mechanical properties of the fibers as taught by Imbert.
Accordingly, Kano in view of Imbert would include the step of detaching a portion of the second protective layer to expose a winding end of the resin-impregnated fiber bundle and peeling and pulling the winding end to draw the resin-impregnated fiber bundle ready for further processing.
Regarding claim 9, Kano in view of Miyoshi and Imbert teaches the process as applied to claim 8, wherein a solution is disposed such that the layer is immersed in a solution containing phosphorus and sulfuric acid to facilitate peel (Kano, [0014]-[0017]; [0052]; Table).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (PG-PUB 2019/0099921) in view of Miyoshi (JP 2020037978, Machine translation relied upon) and Imbert (WO 2024/002641), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Gouda (PG-PUB 2021/0121984) and Hitoshi (JP 2002174695, Machine Translation of relied upon).
Regarding claims 5-7, Kano in view of Miyoshi and Imbert teaches the process as applied to claim 4, wherein a portion of the second layer is removed by laser treatment (Imbert, Page 8, ln 12-26).
Kano in view of Miyoshi and Imbert does not teach:
a laser used in the laser treatment is a carbon dioxide laser, a YAG laser, a fiber laser, or a semiconductor laser;
the laser used in the laser treatment is a carbon dioxide laser; and
the power of the carbon dioxide laser is equal to or less than 100 W.
Gouda teaches irradiating a surface of a composite with a laser source [0032] for removing thermosetting resin [0036] and exposing fibers in the FRP [0037].
Hitoshi teaches a laser treatment in the form of a carbon dioxide laser or YAG laser to expose a coating of nuclear cables using supplying the laser at 5 W/cm2 [0016]-[0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kano in view of Imbert with a laser treatment technique as taught by Gouda and desired by Imbert, to detach a portion of the second treatment to allow for peeling as suggested by Imbert.
As suggested by Gouda, the laser treatment can be performed by a variety of laser sources. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kano in view of Imbert and Gouda with the laser source and treatment of Hitoshi, a known laser source and treatment for removing a coating, to provide a laser source suitable for laser treatment as taught by Gouda.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 3, and 12-14 are allowed.
The closest prior art have been applied. The cited prior art, individually or in combination, do not teach the combination of limitations of claim 1, including drawing the resin-impregnated fiber bundle while applying heat to the tank, wherein a temperature of the heat treatment is 550 to 700 degrees Celsius.
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 HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights