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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0192189 A1) in combination with Cairns et al (WO 2022/208047 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lawrence et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0010], [0012] – [0014], [0016], [0018], [0021], [0022] and [0030]) teaches a process (see paragraphs [0001] (methods for the production of yarns from recycled carbon fibers), [0013] (the yarn includes at least one other fiber) and [0022] (yarns are formed into webs) of Lawrence et al), including (a) providing a quantity of recycled carbon fibers (see paragraph [0016] (cutting or chopping (i.e., providing) recycled carbon fibers) of Lawrence et al); (b) providing a quantity of thermoplastic fibers (see paragraph [0031] (providing additional fibers from at least one thermoplastic resin) of Lawrence et al); (c) mixing the recycled carbon fibers with the thermoplastic fibers to provide a nonwoven fiber mixture (see paragraphs [0018] (blending fibers) and [0031] (blending recycled carbon fibers with additional fibers from at least one thermoplastic resin) of Lawrence et al); and (d) carding the nonwoven fiber mixture to yield a carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic nonwoven web (see paragraph [0021] (carding) of Lawrence et al). Lawrence et al does not teach (1) mixing using resonant acoustic mixing. Cairns et al (see the entire document, in particular, page 1, lines 4-5; page 12, lines 8-11, 13-17, 23-28 and 33-37) teaches a process (see page 1, lines 4-5 (process of making a material) of Cairns et al), including mixing using resonant acoustic mixing (see page 12, lines 13-14 (two or more materials are mixed using acoustic resonance) of Cairns et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix using resonant acoustic mixing in the process of Lawrence et al in view of Cairns et al in order to provide macroscopic and microscopic turbulence without the use of impellers, blades, rotors or paddles (see page 12, lines 14-17 of Cairns et al).
Regarding claim 2, see paragraph [0010] (cutting or chopping waste material containing recycled carbon fiber) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 3, see paragraph [0012] (removal of resin matrix by high-temperature processing) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 5, see paragraph [0013] (polypropylene) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, see paragraph [0014] (recycled carbon fiber content is 0.1 – 99.9% by weight) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 8, see page 12, lines 33-35 (30 seconds to 10 minutes); page 12, lines 35-37 (energy of 30 – 100 grams); page 12, lines 23-28 (frequency of 15 – 1,000 Hz) of Cairns et al.
Regarding claim 9, see page 12, lines 8-11 (dry mixing) of Cairns et al.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0192189 A1) in combination with Alvarez et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0312102 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lawrence et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0010], [0012] – [0014], [0016], [0018], [0021], [0022] and [0030]) teaches a process (see paragraphs [0001] (methods for the production of yarns from recycled carbon fibers), [0013] (the yarn includes at least one other fiber) and [0022] (yarns are formed into webs) of Lawrence et al), including (a) providing a quantity of recycled carbon fibers (see paragraph [0016] (cutting or chopping (i.e., providing) recycled carbon fibers) of Lawrence et al); (b) providing a quantity of thermoplastic fibers (see paragraph [0031] (providing additional fibers from at least one thermoplastic resin) of Lawrence et al); (c) mixing the recycled carbon fibers with the thermoplastic fibers to provide a nonwoven fiber mixture (see paragraphs [0018] (blending fibers) and [0031] (blending recycled carbon fibers with additional fibers from at least one thermoplastic resin) of Lawrence et al); and (d) carding the nonwoven fiber mixture to yield a carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic nonwoven web (see paragraph [0021] (carding) of Lawrence et al). Lawrence et al does not teach (1) mixing using resonant acoustic mixing. Alvarez et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0097] and [0115]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0115] (dispersing materials) of Alvarez et al), including mixing using resonant acoustic mixing (see paragraphs [0097] (material includes a conductive element such as carbon fiber) and [0115] (material includes a conductive element dispersed in a polymer by resonant acoustic mixing) of Alvarez et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix using resonant acoustic mixing in the process of Lawrence et al in view of Alvarez et al in order to provide sufficient dispersion of conductive element in polymer (see paragraph [0115] of Alvarez et al).
Regarding claim 2, see paragraph [0010] (cutting or chopping waste material containing recycled carbon fiber) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 3, see paragraph [0012] (removal of resin matrix by high-temperature processing) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 5, see paragraph [0013] (polypropylene) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, see paragraph [0014] (recycled carbon fiber content is 0.1 – 99.9% by weight) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 10, see paragraphs [0097] (material includes a conductive element such as carbon fiber) and [0115] (material includes a conductive element dispersed in a polymer by resonant acoustic mixing) of Alvarez et al.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0192189 A1) in combination with Cairns et al (WO 2022/208047 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-9 above, and further in view of Ortlepp et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0210298 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lawrence et al (in combination with Cairns et al) teaches recycled carbon fibers (see paragraph [0012] (removal of resin matrix by other suitable means) of Lawrence et al), but does not teach (1) chemically recycled carbon fibers. Ortlepp et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0014] and [0021]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0002] (process of making products from fibers isolated from wastes or used parts) of Ortlepp et al), including chemically recycled carbon fibers (see paragraphs [0014] (carbon fibers isolated from wastes or used parts) and [0021] (waste carbon fibers are freed from matrix substances by treatment with supercritical solvents (i.e., chemical recycling)) of Ortlepp et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide chemically recycled fibers wherein the resin matrix is chemically removed in the process of Lawrence et al (in combination with Cairns et al) in view of Ortlepp et al in order to remove matrix substances from carbon fibers for further processing (see paragraph [0021] of Ortlepp et al).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0192189 A1) in combination with Alvarez et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0312102 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10 above, and further in view of Ortlepp et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0210298 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lawrence et al (in combination with Alvarez et al) teaches recycled carbon fibers (see paragraph [0012] (removal of resin matrix by other suitable means) of Lawrence et al), but does not teach (1) chemically recycled carbon fibers. Ortlepp et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0014] and [0021]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0002] (process of making products from fibers isolated from wastes or used parts) of Ortlepp et al), including chemically recycled carbon fibers (see paragraphs [0014] (carbon fibers isolated from wastes or used parts) and [0021] (waste carbon fibers are freed from matrix substances by treatment with supercritical solvents (i.e., chemical recycling)) of Ortlepp et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide chemically recycled fibers wherein the resin matrix is chemically removed in the process of Lawrence et al (in combination with Alvarez et al) in view of Ortlepp et al in order to remove matrix substances from carbon fibers for further processing (see paragraph [0021] of Ortlepp et al).
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0192189 A1) in combination with Cairns et al (WO 2022/208047 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lawrence et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0010], [0012] – [0014], [0016], [0018], [0021], [0022] and [0030]) teaches a process (see paragraphs [0001] (methods for the production of yarns from recycled carbon fibers), [0013] (the yarn includes at least one other fiber) and [0022] (yarns are formed into webs) of Lawrence et al), including (a) providing a quantity of recycled carbon fibers (see paragraph [0016] (cutting or chopping (i.e., providing) recycled carbon fibers) of Lawrence et al); (b) providing a quantity of polypropylene fibers (see paragraphs [0013] (polypropylene) and [0031] (providing additional fibers from at least one thermoplastic resin) of Lawrence et al); (c) mixing the recycled carbon fibers with the polypropylene fibers to provide a nonwoven fiber mixture (see paragraphs [0013] (polypropylene), [0018] (blending fibers) and [0031] (blending recycled carbon fibers with additional fibers from at least one thermoplastic resin) of Lawrence et al); and (d) carding the nonwoven fiber mixture to yield a carbon fiber-reinforced polypropylene nonwoven web (see paragraph [0021] (carding) of Lawrence et al). Lawrence et al does not teach (1) mixing using resonant acoustic mixing. Cairns et al (see the entire document, in particular, page 1, lines 4-5; page 12, lines 8-11, 13-17, 23-28 and 33-37) teaches a process (see page 1, lines 4-5 (process of making a material) of Cairns et al), including mixing using resonant acoustic mixing (see page 12, lines 13-14 (two or more materials are mixed using acoustic resonance) of Cairns et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix using resonant acoustic mixing in the process of Lawrence et al in view of Cairns et al in order to provide macroscopic and microscopic turbulence without the use of impellers, blades, rotors or paddles (see page 12, lines 14-17 of Cairns et al).
Regarding claim 12, see paragraph [0010] (cutting or chopping waste material containing recycled carbon fiber) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 13, see paragraph [0012] (removal of resin matrix by high-temperature processing) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 15, see paragraph [0013] (polypropylene) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, see paragraph [0014] (recycled carbon fiber content is 0.1 – 99.9% by weight) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 18, see page 12, lines 33-35 (30 seconds to 10 minutes); page 12, lines 35-37 (energy of 30 – 100 grams); page 12, lines 23-28 (frequency of 15 – 1,000 Hz) of Cairns et al.
Regarding claim 19, see page 12, lines 8-11 (dry mixing) of Cairns et al.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0192189 A1) in combination with Alvarez et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0312102 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lawrence et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0010], [0012] – [0014], [0016], [0018], [0021], [0022] and [0030]) teaches a process (see paragraphs [0001] (methods for the production of yarns from recycled carbon fibers), [0013] (the yarn includes at least one other fiber) and [0022] (yarns are formed into webs) of Lawrence et al), including (a) providing a quantity of recycled carbon fibers (see paragraph [0016] (cutting or chopping (i.e., providing) recycled carbon fibers) of Lawrence et al); (b) providing a quantity of polypropylene fibers (see paragraphs [0013] (polypropylene) and [0031] (providing additional fibers from at least one thermoplastic resin) of Lawrence et al); (c) mixing the recycled carbon fibers with the polypropylene fibers to provide a nonwoven fiber mixture (see paragraphs [0013] (polypropylene), [0018] (blending fibers) and [0031] (blending recycled carbon fibers with additional fibers from at least one thermoplastic resin) of Lawrence et al); and (d) carding the nonwoven fiber mixture to yield a carbon fiber-reinforced polypropylene nonwoven web (see paragraph [0021] (carding) of Lawrence et al). Lawrence et al does not teach (1) mixing using resonant acoustic mixing. Alvarez et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0097] and [0115]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0115] (dispersing materials) of Alvarez et al), including mixing using resonant acoustic mixing (see paragraphs [0097] (material includes a conductive element such as carbon fiber) and [0115] (material includes a conductive element dispersed in a polymer by resonant acoustic mixing) of Alvarez et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix using resonant acoustic mixing in the process of Lawrence et al in view of Alvarez et al in order to provide sufficient dispersion of conductive element in polymer (see paragraph [0115] of Alvarez et al).
Regarding claim 12, see paragraph [0010] (cutting or chopping waste material containing recycled carbon fiber) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 13, see paragraph [0012] (removal of resin matrix by high-temperature processing) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 15, see paragraph [0013] (polypropylene) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, see paragraph [0014] (recycled carbon fiber content is 0.1 – 99.9% by weight) of Lawrence et al.
Regarding claim 20, see paragraphs [0097] (material includes a conductive element such as carbon fiber) and [0115] (material includes a conductive element dispersed in a polymer by resonant acoustic mixing) of Alvarez et al.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0192189 A1) in combination with Cairns et al (WO 2022/208047 A1) as applied to claims 11-13 and 15-19 above, and further in view of Ortlepp et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0210298 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lawrence et al (in combination with Cairns et al) teaches recycled carbon fibers (see paragraph [0012] (removal of resin matrix by other suitable means) of Lawrence et al), but does not teach (1) chemically recycled carbon fibers. Ortlepp et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0014] and [0021]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0002] (process of making products from fibers isolated from wastes or used parts) of Ortlepp et al), including chemically recycled carbon fibers (see paragraphs [0014] (carbon fibers isolated from wastes or used parts) and [0021] (waste carbon fibers are freed from matrix substances by treatment with supercritical solvents (i.e., chemical recycling)) of Ortlepp et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide chemically recycled fibers wherein the resin matrix is chemically removed in the process of Lawrence et al (in combination with Cairns et al) in view of Ortlepp et al in order to remove matrix substances from carbon fibers for further processing (see paragraph [0021] of Ortlepp et al).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0192189 A1) in combination with Alvarez et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0312102 A1) as applied to claims 11-13, 15-17 and 20 above, and further in view of Ortlepp et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0210298 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lawrence et al (in combination with Alvarez et al) teaches recycled carbon fibers (see paragraph [0012] (removal of resin matrix by other suitable means) of Lawrence et al), but does not teach (1) chemically recycled carbon fibers. Ortlepp et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0014] and [0021]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0002] (process of making products from fibers isolated from wastes or used parts) of Ortlepp et al), including chemically recycled carbon fibers (see paragraphs [0014] (carbon fibers isolated from wastes or used parts) and [0021] (waste carbon fibers are freed from matrix substances by treatment with supercritical solvents (i.e., chemical recycling)) of Ortlepp et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide chemically recycled fibers wherein the resin matrix is chemically removed in the process of Lawrence et al (in combination with Alvarez et al) in view of Ortlepp et al in order to remove matrix substances from carbon fibers for further processing (see paragraph [0021] of Ortlepp et al).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0192189 A1) in combination with Cairns et al (WO 2022/208047 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Lawrence et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0010], [0012] – [0014], [0016], [0018], [0021], [0022] and [0030]) teaches a process (see paragraphs [0001] (methods for the production of yarns from recycled carbon fibers), [0013] (the yarn includes at least one other fiber) and [0022] (yarns are formed into webs) of Lawrence et al), including (a) providing about 20% to about 40% by weight of recycled carbon fibers (see paragraphs [0016] (cutting or chopping (i.e., providing) recycled carbon fibers) and [0014] (recycled carbon fiber content is 0.1 – 99.9% by weight) of Lawrence et al); (b) providing about 60% to about 80% by weight of thermoplastic fibers (see paragraphs [0031] (providing additional fibers from at least one thermoplastic resin) and [0014] (recycled carbon fiber content is 0.1 – 99.9% by weight) of Lawrence et al); (c) mixing the recycled carbon fibers with the thermoplastic fibers to provide a nonwoven fiber mixture (see paragraphs [0018] (blending fibers) and [0031] (blending recycled carbon fibers with additional fibers from at least one thermoplastic resin) of Lawrence et al); and (d) carding the nonwoven fiber mixture to yield a carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic nonwoven web (see paragraph [0021] (carding) of Lawrence et al). Lawrence et al does not teach (1) mixing using resonant acoustic mixing for a time period from about 1 minute to about 5 minutes, about 75 grams force to about 100 grams force and a frequency of about 55 Hz to about 65 Hz. Cairns et al (see the entire document, in particular, page 1, lines 4-5; page 12, lines 8-11, 13-17, 23-28 and 33-37) teaches a process (see page 1, lines 4-5 (process of making a material) of Cairns et al), including mixing using resonant acoustic mixing (see page 12, lines 13-14 (two or more materials are mixed using acoustic resonance) of Cairns et al), a time period from about 1 minute to about 5 minutes (see page 12, lines 33-35 (30 seconds to 10 minutes) of Cairns et al), about 75 grams force to about 100 grams force (see page 12, lines 35-37 (energy of 30 – 100 grams) of Cairns et al) and a frequency of about 55 Hz to about 65 Hz (see page 12, lines 23-28 (frequency of 15 – 1,000 Hz) of Cairns et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix using resonant acoustic mixing for a time period from about 1 minute to about 5 minutes, about 75 grams force to about 100 grams force and a frequency of about 55 Hz to about 65 Hz in the process of Lawrence et al in view of Cairns et al in order to provide macroscopic and microscopic turbulence without the use of impellers, blades, rotors or paddles (see page 12, lines 14-17 of Cairns et al).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742