DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13 is/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 1 recites “core-shell-type particles”. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (in this instance “core-shell particles”) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E). Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 110951244) in view of Gilbert (Brydson's Plastics Materials (8th Ed.) - 3.5.5 Core-Shell Elastomer Impact Modifier Particles; 2017).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of CN ‘244 mailed 11/5/2025.
Regarding claim 1:
Ding discloses a regenerated thermoplastic composite material comprising recycled carbon fiber (abstract; p4-5). In making this composite, Ding first prepares a pelletized or granulized masterbatch comprising a carrier, recycled carbon fiber, recycled plastic particles, and additives (p5). The carrier comprises thermoplastics, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, etc. (p5). The additives comprise dispersants, antioxidants, etc. (p6).
Ding is silent with regard to a core-shell particle.
Such particles were known in the art to have utility. For example, as disclosed in the identified chapter of Brydson’s Plastics Materials, core-shell elastomer particles having a graft polymer shell on a rubber core were the most effective and most common ways to improve impact resistance in polymer materials.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add core-shell particles to Ding’s composite material to adjust and improve the impact resistance of the resulting article as desired.
Regarding claim 2:
Ding does not describe the carrier polymers as being recycled (i.e., the polymer is virgin).
Regarding claim 3:
Ding teaches the fiber is in the form of powder (i.e., milled) (p7).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 110951244) in view of Gilbert (Brydson's Plastics Materials (8th Ed.) - 3.5.5 Core-Shell Elastomer Impact Modifier Particles; 2017) as applied above, and further in view of Gareiss et al. (US 6,093,759).
Regarding claim 13:
Ding discloses a composition as previously explained.
Ding is silent with regard with regard to a phosphazene-based compound.
Such compounds were known in the art to have utility as flame retardants. For example, Gareiss discloses flame-retardant thermoplastic compositions comprising thermoplastic and phosphazene compounds (abstract; 1:4+; 9:64+).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a phosphazene compound to Ding’s composition to adjust and improve the flame retardancy of the resulting article as desired.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (JP 2020-176244) in view of Gilbert (Brydson's Plastics Materials (8th Ed.) - 3.5.5 Core-Shell Elastomer Impact Modifier Particles; 2017), as evidenced by the East Coast Fibreglass Supplies website (Accessed: 10/31/2025).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of JP ‘244 mailed 11/5/2025.
Regarding claim 1:
Kusama discloses a polyolefin composition comprising (A) a recycled carbon fiber, (B) a polyolefin, and a dispersing agent (C) [abstract; 0001; 0007-0009]. The polyolefin comprises thermoplastic [0018; 0042]. The carbon fiber is recycled from CFRP [0014]. The composition further comprises additives [0032]. The composition can be provided in the form of a master batch [0033].
Kusama is silent with regard to a core-shell particle.
Such particles were known in the art to have utility. For example, as disclosed in the identified chapter of Brydson’s Plastics Materials, core-shell elastomer particles having a graft polymer shell on a rubber core were the most effective and most common ways to improve impact resistance in polymer materials.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add core-shell particles to Kusama’s composition to adjust and improve the impact resistance of the resulting article as desired.
Regarding claim 2:
Kusama does not disclose the polyolefin is recycled and further discloses commercially sold polymers (i.e., the polymer is virgin) [0018-0020].
Regarding claim 3:
Kusama discloses recycled carbon fibers include those sold under the name CARBISO MF [0016]. This material is milled carbon fiber as evidenced by the cited East Coast Fibreglass Supplies website.
Regarding claim 4:
Kusama teaches the masterbatch is used with an additional molding resin (base material) [0033-0034]. Kusama teaches a composite having a flexural modulus (bending elastic modulus) equal to 10,000 MPa or more [0055].
Regarding claim 6:
See the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 7:
Kusama teaches the use of a flame retardant [0036].
The reference is silent with regard to a specific level of flame retardancy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the disclosed flame retardant to provide any desired level of flame retardancy required for a given end use. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of flame retardant to provide any desired level of flame retardancy, including levels falling within the claimed range, to provide improved flame retardance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8:
Kusama teaches the masterbatch is blended with an additional molding resin (base material) [0033-0034].
Regarding claims 9 and 12:
See the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10:
See the rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (JP 2020-176244) in view of Gilbert (Brydson's Plastics Materials (8th Ed.) - 3.5.5 Core-Shell Elastomer Impact Modifier Particles; 2017) as applied above, and further in view of Muzzy et al. (US 2001/0018118).
Regarding claims 5 and 11:
Kusama discloses a masterbatch and method of manufacturing plastic using the same as previously explained.
Kusama is silent with regard to the use of recovered plastic.
The use of recycled or recovered plastic was known in the art to have utility. For example, Muzzy discloses fiber-reinforced recycled thermoplastic composites [abstract; 0003; 0014]. The use of recycled thermoplastics permits reuse of waste materials [0027].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use recycled thermoplastic with Kusama’s invention to reuse waste material and provide environmental benefits.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (JP 2020-176244) in view of Gilbert (Brydson's Plastics Materials (8th Ed.) - 3.5.5 Core-Shell Elastomer Impact Modifier Particles; 2017) as applied above, and further in view of Gareiss et al. (US 6,093,759).
Regarding claims 13:
Kusama discloses a masterbatch and method of manufacturing plastic using the same as previously explained. Kusama teaches the use of a flame retardant [0036].
Kusama is silent with regard to a phosphazene-based compound.
Such compounds were known in the art to have utility as flame retardants. For example, Gareiss discloses flame-retardant thermoplastic compositions comprising thermoplastic and phosphazene compounds (abstract; 1:4+; 9:64+).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a phosphazene compound to Kusama’s composition to adjust and improve the flame retardancy of the resulting article as desired.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2023/0145210) in view of Gilbert (Brydson's Plastics Materials (8th Ed.) - 3.5.5 Core-Shell Elastomer Impact Modifier Particles; 2017).
Regarding claim 1:
Nishino discloses a composition comprising polycarbonate and a recycled carbon fiber and a pellet comprising the same [abstract; 0001; 0008]. The reference further uses a flow modifier and other ingredients that have disclosed functions, including an impact resistance modifier [0065-0071].
Nishino is silent with regard to a core-shell particle.
Such particles were known in the art to have utility. For example, as disclosed in the identified chapter of Brydson’s Plastics Materials, core-shell elastomer particles having a graft polymer shell on a rubber core were the most effective and most common ways to improve impact resistance in polymer materials.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add core-shell particles to Nishino’s composition to adjust and improve the impact resistance of the resulting article as desired.
While there is no disclosure that the composition and/or pellet is a “master batch” as presently claimed, Applicant's attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e., a masterbatch, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which is a composition or pellet comprising the composition identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Regarding claim 2:
Nishino teaches the polycarbonate is formed by polymerization (i.e., virgin) [0036].
Regarding claim 4:
Although Nishino is silent with regard to a masterbatch, the final product of the present claims encompasses a composition comprising a resin composition, a function-imparting agent, and recycled carbon fibers. It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e., a regenerated plastic, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which is a composition identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Nishino teaches the flexural modulus (bending elastic modulus) can be made to be over 13,400 MPa (see, e.g., Table 3 on p7).
Regarding claim 6:
Nishino teaches the polycarbonate is formed by polymerization (i.e., virgin) [0036].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2023/0145210) in view of Gilbert (Brydson's Plastics Materials (8th Ed.) - 3.5.5 Core-Shell Elastomer Impact Modifier Particles; 2017) as applied above, and further in view of Toyoshima et al. (US 2020/0079918)
Regarding claim 3:
Nishino discloses a composition as previously explained. The recycled carbon fiber is made according to the disclosure of WO 2018/212016, which is incorporated by reference [0057]. Toyoshima US ‘918 is the publication of the US Application corresponding to WO ‘016. Toyoshima teaches the recycled carbon fibers are milled [abstract; 0001; 0009].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use milled carbon fibers because Nishino suggests using such fibers with its invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2023/0145210) in view of Gilbert (Brydson's Plastics Materials (8th Ed.) - 3.5.5 Core-Shell Elastomer Impact Modifier Particles; 2017) as applied above, and further in view of Muzzy et al. (US 2001/0018118).
Regarding claim 5:
Nishino discloses a composition as previously explained.
Nishino is silent with regard to the use of recovered plastic.
The use of recycled or recovered plastic was known in the art to have utility. For example, Muzzy discloses fiber-reinforced recycled thermoplastic composites [abstract; 0003; 0014]. The use of recycled thermoplastics permits reuse of waste materials [0027].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use recycled thermoplastic with Nishino’s invention to reuse waste material and provide environmental benefits.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2023/0145210) in view of Gilbert (Brydson's Plastics Materials (8th Ed.) - 3.5.5 Core-Shell Elastomer Impact Modifier Particles; 2017) as applied above, and further in view of Gareiss et al. (US 6,093,759).
Regarding claim 13:
Nishino discloses a composition as previously explained.
Nishino is silent with regard with regard to a phosphazene-based compound.
Such compounds were known in the art to have utility as flame retardants. For example, Gareiss discloses flame-retardant thermoplastic compositions comprising thermoplastic and phosphazene compounds (abstract; 1:4+; 9:64+).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a phosphazene compound to Nishino’s composition to adjust and improve the flame retardancy of the resulting article as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the references cited in the previous rejections, Ding, Kusama, Nishino, Muzzy, and Toyoshima, fail to disclose core-shell particles (p5-6).
While the examiner agrees the references are silent with regard to this new requirement, newly cited Gilbert (Brydson's Plastics Materials) discloses such materials were well known in the art to have utility as impact modifiers. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teachings of the references as explained in the new rejections above.
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 JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787