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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 4/24/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE102023110406.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn in response to the amendments filed 1/5/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that the references do not teach the amended claim limitations which require the fine grinding step to be performed with a cryogenic cooling screw and an impact jet mill to obtain a powder of less than 100 microns in size. Applicant notes that Liu discloses using a liquid nitrogen ball mill rather than an impact jet mill. Applicant subsequently argues that the remaining dependent claims are also not met due to claim 1 not being met. While Examiner agrees that Liu does not disclose an impact jet mill in combination with the cryogenic screw, an impact jet mill is a known method of performing fine grinding. After further search, a new reference, Dellekamp, is cited which describes a similar recycling process which uses a jet mill for fine grinding.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartkowski (EP0443051B1, made of record on the IDS dated 10/8/2024, see English translation provided) modified by Liu (CN113681770A, see English translation previously provided) and Dellekamp (US 5,312,052.)
Regarding claim 1, Bartkowski meets the claimed, A method for obtaining recyclate from thermosetting materials, comprising the following method steps: A) providing thermosetting starting materials to be recycled; (Bartkowski [0042] describes providing a compressed SMC waste part 1, [0038] describes thermosets with glass fiber) B) breaking the thermosetting starting materials of method step A) with a twin-shaft shredder to obtain a plurality of fragments; (Bartkowski [0042] describes pre-shredding in a shredder 2, see Figure 1 showing the shredder 2 has two shafts) C) shredding the fragments of method step B) with a single-shaft shredder to obtain a plurality of flakes; (Bartkowski [0042] describes a striking mechanism 3, Figure 1 shows only one shaft on striking mechanism 3) and D) fine grinding of the flakes of method step C) to obtain a recyclate powder (Bartkowski [0044] describes finely grinding in the fine grinding stage 9) having an average particle size of less than 100 µm (Bartkowski [0044] describes the fine grinding stage 9 grinds the particle size to less than 500 µm, claimed ranges which overlap or lie inside the range disclosed by the art are obvious, see MPEP §2144.05(I).)
Bartkowski does not specify the machine used in the fine grinding process and does not meet the claimed, using a cryogenic cooling screw with continuous addition of nitrogen. Analogous in the field of waste recycling, Liu meets the claimed, using a cryogenic cooling screw with continuous addition of nitrogen (Liu [0005]-[0006] describe a liquid nitrogen is pumped to the ball mill during grinding.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the grinding method of Bartkowski with the liquid nitrogen ball mill of Liu in order to freeze the polymers and make them more brittle and easier to break, see Liu [0002].
Bartkowski does not specify the fine grinding machine and Liu describes a ball mill rather than the claimed impact jet mill. Analogous in the field of recycling waste composites, Dellekamp meets the claimed, impact jet mill (Dellekamp col. 4 lines 56-64 describe a system for milling fine particles derived from recycled SMC content using a jet mill.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the ball mill of Liu for the jet mill of Dellekamp
Regarding claim 2, Bartkowski meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1, wherein thermosetting fiber composite components are provided as a thermosetting starting material to be recycled in method step A) (Bartkowski [0042] describes providing a compressed SMC waste part 1, [0038] describes thermosets with glass fiber).
Regarding claim 5, The method according to claim 1, wherein the fragments are shredded in method step C) using a cutting mill, or a hammer mill (Bartkowski [0030] specifies a hammer mill.)
Regarding claim 7, none of Bartkowski, Liu, or Dellekamp specify the exact throughput of the fine grinding process or jet mill and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method according to claim 1, wherein the flakes are finely ground into the recyclate powder at a throughput in the range of 100 kg/h to 1,000 kg/h using the impact jet mill however, Liu [0035] discloses that the discharge port 124 of the pulverization process discharge the material at a predetermined weight in order to improve accuracy.
Liu discloses the material inlet rate, and by extension the throughput, is a result-effective variable affecting the accuracy. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the throughput of the mill via modifying the input of the material in order to optimize accuracy, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B). Additionally, changes in size and proportion are generally recognized as being obvious. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to simply scale up the mill in size to achieve any desired throughput, see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Bartkowski meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1, wherein in method step A), thermosetting fiber composite parts as sheet molding compound (SMC) parts are provided as thermosetting starting materials (Bartkowski [0026] describes SMC material.)
Regarding claim 11, Bartkowski meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1, wherein the method before method step A) comprises the following additional method step: A0) providing uncured or incompletely cured fiber composite semi-finished products and curing the uncured fiber composite semi-finished products to obtain fiber composite parts to be recycled for use as thermosetting starting materials for method step A) (Bartkowski [0049] discloses a step of curing an SMC material before returning it to a recycling center.)
Regarding claim 17, Bartkowski meets the claimed, The method according to claim 2, wherein the thermosetting fiber composite components comprise glass fibers embedded in a cured thermosetting matrix material (Bartkowski [0027] describes glass fiber reinforced thermosets.)
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartkowski modified by Liu and Dellekamp as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Pickering (“Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials – current status” originally provided with the IDS dated 1/8/2024.)
Regarding claim 3, Bartkowski does not specify the size after each shredding step and does not meet the claimed, The method according to claim 1 wherein in method step B), the thermosetting starting materials are broken to fragments having an edge length in the range from 5 cm to 20 cm.
Analogous in the field of recycling thermosetting composites, Pickering describes a recycling method where two shredding steps occur. Pickering Section 2.1 discloses the size of the particles after the first shredding step is 50-100mm, or 5-10 cm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the shredding step disclosed in Bartkowski with the step of shredding the material to 5-10 cm as disclosed in Pickering in order to facilitate the removal of other components such as metal, see Pickering Section 2.1.
Regarding claim 4, Bartkowski does not specify the size after each shredding step and does not meet the claimed, The method according to claim 1, wherein in method step C), the fragments are shredded into flakes having an edge length in the range from 1 cm to 5 cm.
Pickering does not disclose the exact range, an edge length in the range from 1 cm to 5 cm., however, Pickering Section 2.1 discloses the size of the particles after a second shredding step is between 50µm-10mm which overlaps the claimed range at 1cm/10mm. Claimed ranges which overlap or lie inside the range disclosed by the art are obvious, see MPEP §2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the shredding method of Bartkowski with the shredding step in Pickering which shreds the materials to the size of 1 cm in order to control the amount of powder or filler vs fiber in the particulate, see Pickering Section 2.1, second paragraph.
Claim 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartkowski modified by Liu and Dellekamp as applied to claim 11 above and in further view of Masini (US 2014/0378582.)
Regarding claim 12, Bartkowski does not meet the claimed, The method according to claim 11, wherein in method step A0), the uncured fiber composite semi-finished products are positioned flat under an electromagnetic radiation source and exposed to electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range from 780 nm to 1 mm to heat the fiber composite semi-finished products.
Analogous in the field of curing SMC products, Masini meets the claimed, The method according to claim 11, wherein in method step A0), the uncured fiber composite semi-finished products are positioned flat under an electromagnetic radiation source and exposed to electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range from 780 nm to 1 mm to heat the fiber composite semi-finished products (Masini [0005] describes the SMC semi-finished blocks (flat) are subjected to infrared rays.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of curing disclosed in Bartkowski with the method of microwave curing in order to help reduce the curing time, see Masini [0005].
Regarding claim 13, Bartkowski does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method according to claim 12, wherein the fiber composite semi-finished products are heated to a surface temperature in the range from 150°C to 250°C, however, Bartkowski [0049] discloses that the curing occurs under a pressure and temperature to cure the part. Since Bartkowski discloses that the temperature is a result-effective variable which controls the cure of the part, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the temperature through routine optimization in order to control the cure of the SMC, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartkowski as modified by Liu and Dellekamp as applied to claims 1 or 11 above and in further view of Witte (US 2017/0174860).
Regarding claim 14, Bartkowski meets the claimed, The method according to claim 11, wherein in method step A0), the uncured fiber composite semi-finished products are introduced into a tempering furnace, (Bartkowski [0049] discloses curing in a mold, the mold being heated and meeting the broadest reasonable definition of a furnace) and a temperature in the range from 80°C to 200°C is generated in the tempering furnace (Bartkowski [0049] discloses that the curing occurs under a pressure and temperature to cure the part. Since Bartkowski discloses that the temperature is a result-effective variable which controls the cure of the part, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the temperature through routine optimization in order to control the cure of the SMC, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)).
Bartkowski does not describe the time and does not meet the claimed, and the fiber composite semi-finished products are cured in the tempering furnace for a period of 15-360 minutes.
Analogous in the field of recycling molded compounds, Witte describes adding recycled material and resin into a platen press at an elevated temperature, see [0039]. Although Witte does not explicitly disclose the time and does not explicitly meet the claimed, and the fiber composite semi-finished products are cured in the tempering furnace for a period of 15-360 minutes, Witte [0039] describes the material is in the platen pressed until it forms the final product and can be demolded. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize the amount of time in the press through routine optimization such that the product is completed, see Witte [0039] and MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 15, Bartkowski meets the claimed, A manufacturing method for a thermosetting fiber composite semi-finished product, comprising the following method steps: A) providing formulation ingredients for manufacturing a thermosetting matrix material for fiber composite semi-finished products, the formulation ingredients comprising a filler mixture and a thermosetting reactive resin, (Bartkowski [0048] describes combining a resin paste and the recycled materials, see [0010]-[0011] discussing thermosetting materials) wherein the filler mixture comprises at least recyclate powder obtained by the method according to claim 1 in an amount of 1% to 40% of the filler by weight based on a total weight of the filler mixture (Bartkowski [0025] discloses 10-40% be weight of the recovered powder) B) conveying the formulation ingredients of step A) comprising the filler mixture and the reactive resin into a dissolver with the aid of at least one metering device; (Bartkowski [0048] discloses addition devices for adding the powder and filler and a tank for dispensing the resin paste onto a film) D) doctor blade coating of the resin-filler mixture of step C) onto a co-extruded drag film, wherein the resin-filler mixture is added to the drag film via a doctor blade box; (Bartkowski [0048] describes applying resin to a film 19 via a doctor blade and the recycled fibers, although Bartkowski does not include a doctor blade to apply the powder, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to use a doctor blade since it is a disclosed method of applying the material to the film) E) applying chopped fibers, fiber fabrics, or non-crimp fabrics comprising glass fibers, carbon fibers, or natural fibers to the resin-filler mixture coated with a doctor blade to obtain a fiber-resin-filler semi-finished product; (Bartkowski [0048] describes adding additional glass fiber materials via a section addition device 22, although Bartkowski does not include a doctor blade to apply the glass fibers, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to use a doctor blade since it is a disclosed method of applying the material to the film) and F) fulling the fiber-resin-filler semi-finished product to obtain a semi-finished product, wherein the fibers are uniformly enclosed with the reactive resin and the recyclate powder (Bartkowski [0048] discloses impregnation and covering the powder/fibers with an additional cover film made of polyethylene.)
Bartkowski does not disclose mixing the resin and the recycled fiber/powder together prior to deposition and does not meet the claimed, C) mixing the formulation ingredients in the dissolver using at least one of a dissolver disk and a double suction toothed disk process to obtain a homogeneous resin-filler mixture comprising the recyclate powder.
Analogous in the field of recycling molding compounds, Witte meets the claimed, C) mixing the formulation ingredients in the dissolver using at least one of a dissolver disk and a double suction toothed disk process to obtain a homogeneous resin-filler mixture comprising the recyclate powder. (Witte [0018] describes the recycled waste should be mixed with resin in a mixing apparatus with a disperser disc or dissolver.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the method of Bartkowski to include a step of mixing the resin and the additives together prior to molding in order to produce a homogenous mixture without any agglomerates, see Witte [0014].
Regarding claim 16, Bartkowski meets the claimed, A manufacturing method for a Class A fiber composite molded part comprising the method steps according to claim 15 and further comprising: G) pressing the semi-finished product of step F) to obtain a fiber composite molded part; (Bartkowski [0049] discloses pressing/curing in a press 27) H) applying an in-mold coating layer in the pressing process with subsequent or direct painting; and I) curing the fiber composite molded part (Bartkowski [0049] describes placing the SMC pieces into a press 27, the SMC being the in-mold coating layer, and curing.)
Regarding claim 18, Bartkowski does not specify the claimed, The method according to claim 1, wherein the thermosetting starting materials to be recycled comprise waste products generated as surplus cuttings or excess sections during production of fiber composite components.
Analogous in the field of recycling molding compounds, Witte meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1, wherein the thermosetting starting materials to be recycled comprise waste products generated as surplus cuttings or excess sections during production of fiber composite components (Witte [0009] describes using offcut wastes as the waste material to be recycled, Example 1 further specifies offcut resin and fiber materials.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute or combine the starting waste material of Bartkowski with the offcut waste material of Witte in order to reuse material that is excess or not suitable for use in manufacturing, see Witte [0004].
Regarding claim 19, Bartkowski does not specify the claimed, The method according to claim 1, wherein the thermosetting starting materials to be recycled comprise fiber composite components that are no longer usable due to aging or destruction.
Analogous in the field of recycling molding compounds, Witte meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1, wherein the thermosetting starting materials to be recycled comprise fiber composite components that are no longer usable due to aging or destruction (Witte [0003] describes the waste prepregs have exceeded their shelf life.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute or combine the starting waste material of Bartkowski with the aged waste material of Witte in order to reuse material that is not suitable for use in manufacturing, see Witte [0004].
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 VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744