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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 6/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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.
The phrase “high-tensile continuous fiber spun yarn” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what specific level of tensile strength is being claimed.
The limitation requiring “producing slitter yarns cut into a long length” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what specific length is being claimed.
The phrase “predetermined narrow width” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what specific width is being claimed. Plus, use of “predetermined” is indefinite in a claim because it simply means determined beforehand, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. V. Marzall, Comr. Pats., 84 USPQ 180 (Court of Appeals, District of Columbia). It is unclear when exactly the narrow width is determined.
The phrase “predetermined thickness” renders the claims indefinite because use of “predetermined” is indefinite in a claim because it simply means determined beforehand. It is unclear when exactly the thickness is determined.
Claim 3, the phrase “low temperature” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what specific temperature is being claimed.
Claim 4, the phrase “finely sized meshes” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what specific mesh size is being claimed.
Claim 4, the phrase “predetermined thickness and basis weight” renders the claim indefinite because use of “predetermined” is indefinite in a claim because it simply means determined beforehand. It is unclear when exactly the thickness is determined or when the basis weight is determined.
Claim 11, the phrase “predetermined pattern” renders the claim indefinite because use of “predetermined” is indefinite in a claim because it simply means determined beforehand. It is unclear when exactly the pattern is determined.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2013/0192189 to Lawrence in view of KR 100918686 to Park, USPAP 2017/0165876 to Goh, and/or JP 2020050999 to Hirota.
Claim 1, Lawrence discloses a method for manufacturing a high-tensile continuous fiber spun yarn using a recycled carbon fiber (rCF), the method comprising: recovering a rCF raw material from a waste composite material product, the waste composite material product comprising carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP); fabricating a rCF nonwoven fabric using the recovered rCF raw material; producing slitter yarns cut into a long length and a predetermined narrow width by placing the rCF nonwoven fabric into slitter equipment in a slitting process; fabricating the high-tensile continuous fiber spun yarn with a predetermined thickness by twisting at least one of the slitter yarns through twisting equipment in a twisting process; and producing a spun yarn product (see entire document including [0009], [0012], [0016]-[0028], [0044], [0059] and [0060]).
Lawrence does not appear to specifically mention winding the high-tensile continuous fiber spun yarn on a bobbin using a spinning machine but Park discloses that it is known in the art to wind carbon fiber spun yarn on a bobbin using a spinning machine (see entire document including translation pages 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to wind the carbon fiber spun yarn of Lawrence on a bobbin as claimed to store it for future use and make it easy to unwind when ready for the intended use.
Claim 2, Lawrence discloses that the recovering of the rCF raw material comprises separating only a carbon fiber portion from a CFRP filament winding obtained by cutting the waste composite material product using a separator and recovering the rCF raw material in a form of short fibers ([0009]-[0020]). Lawrence does not appear to specifically mention treating the separated carbon fiber with a formic acid, a hydrogen peroxide, and a surfactant but Goh discloses that it is known in the art to recover rCF by treating the separated carbon fiber with a formic acid, a hydrogen peroxide, and a surfactant (see entire document including [0016], [0078]-[0084] and [0100]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to treat the separated carbon fiber of Lawrence with a formic acid, a hydrogen peroxide, and a surfactant to recover the carbon fiber.
Claim 3, Goh does not appear to specifically teach repeating the formic acid, a hydrogen peroxide, and a surfactant cleaning process more than once but considering that the process is to clean the carbon fiber, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to repeat the process as necessary until the carbon fiber is satisfactorily cleaned.
Claim 4, Lawrence does not appear to specifically mention fabricating the rCF nonwoven fabric as claimed but Hirota discloses that it is known in the art to form a reduced defect nonwoven fabric of recycled carbon fibers by performing a disintegration process comprising putting the recovered rCF raw material into pulper equipment and mixing the recovered rCF raw material with water to disintegrate the recovered rCF raw material; performing a beating process comprising putting the rCF raw material subjected to the disintegration process into refiner equipment and crushing the rCF raw material with physical force in the refiner equipment to spread crushed fibers of the rCF raw material in a unit of strand; performing a web forming process comprising spraying the rCF raw material subjected to the beating process onto a wire having finely sized meshes to remove part of the water and form the rCF nonwoven fabric, wherein an input amount of the rCF raw material is adjusted to produce the rCF nonwoven fabric of predetermined thickness and basis weight; performing a dewatering process comprising compressing the rCF nonwoven fabric subjected to the web forming process to remove moisture; performing a drying process comprising removing remaining moisture from the rCF nonwoven fabric with dry air heated using a cylinder dryer device after the dewatering process; and performing a winding process comprising winding the dried rCF nonwoven fabric onto a spool (see entire translation document including the Description of Embodiments section). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to fabricate the carbon fiber nonwoven as claimed to produce a carbon fiber nonwoven with reduced defects.
Claim 5, the prior art does not appear to specifically mention subjecting the roll-shaped carbon fiber to a rewind process comprising rewinding the wound rCF nonwoven fabric through a plurality of rollers after the winding process but the examiner takes official notice that it is known in the art to subject carbon fibers to the claimed rewind process to control tension, stretch and/or align the fibers, and/or create a uniform package. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to subject the roll-shaped carbon fiber to the claimed rewind process to control tension, stretch and/or align the fibers, and/or create a uniform package.
Claims 6-8, 10 and 11, the prior art does not appear to specifically mention the claimed water to rCF raw material ratio, feed speed, raw material supply amount, winding speed, or yarn width/thickness, but the examiner takes official notice that these are well-known optimized process parameter values. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the claimed values, such as claimed, based on the intended application and the desired end product characteristics.
Claim 9, Lawrence disclose that in the web forming process, the rCF nonwoven fabric is subjected to the web forming process under conditions set to increase a bonding force (intermingling) between short fibers [0021].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights