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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated March 9, 2026. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaeger (USPGPub 2018/0245730A1) in view of Short (USPN 5,271,999).
Yaeger discloses a rodent barrier (Figures; Abstract) comprising: a wire mesh layer comprising stainless steel (Paragraph 0019) and having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (Paragraph 0019; Figure 4); an adhesive extending through the wire mesh layer from the first surface to the second surface, wherein the adhesive layer is configured to bond the first surface of the wire mesh layer to a separate surface as part of a duct tape structure (Paragraph 0019; Figure 4) as in claim 1. In claim 7, the cylindrical wire mesh is cut along a transverse axis to form a planar wire mesh layer (The recitation that “the cylindrical wire mesh is cut along a transverse axis to form a planar wire mesh layer” is a process recitation in a product. Product claims including process recitations are not limited by the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present instance, the process steps imply that the wire is in the form of a sheet. The reference discloses such a product. See Figure 1B). However, Yaeger fails to disclose the adhesive layer comprises a thermoplastic rubber; the protective layer comprises a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) film having a thickness of 25 µm to about 150 µm, the adhesive layer comprises a hotmelt adhesive, the hotmelt adhesive comprises an additive, and the additive comprises an antioxidant.
Short teaches a duct tape (Abstract) having an adhesive layer comprises a thermoplastic rubber (Abstract); and a protective layer bonded to the adhesive at the second surface (Column 5, lines 5 – 36), wherein the protective layer comprises a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) film (Column 5, lines 32 – 36) having a thickness of 25 µm to about 150 µm (Column 8, lines 48 – 53, wherein 1.6 mils is equal to 40.6 µm), the adhesive layer comprises a hotmelt adhesive (Abstract), the hotmelt adhesive comprises an additive (Abstract), the additive comprises an antioxidant (Abstract), and the protective layer comprises low density polyethylene (LDPE) (Column 5, lines 32 – 36) for the purpose of having a tape that may be removed from a surface without leaving behind adhesive (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a duct tape made with a protective layer and hotmelt adhesive in Yaeger in order to have a tape that may be removed from a surface without leaving behind adhesive as taught by Short.
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaeger (USPGPub 2018/0245730A1) in view of Short (USPN 5,271,999) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono et al. (USPGPub 2022/0056316 A1).
Yaeger, as modified with Short, discloses the claimed invention except for a release layer removably coupled to the adhesive layer, the wire mesh layer is formed from a cylindrical wire mesh, and the cylindrical wire mesh comprises a knitted sleeve.
Ono et al. teach a laminate structure (Abstract) with a release layer removably coupled to an adhesive layer (Paragraph 0066), the cylindrical wire mesh comprises a knitted sleeve (Paragraphs 0068 and 0092), the adhesive layer comprises a hotmelt adhesive (Paragraph 0074), the hotmelt adhesive comprises a thermoplastic rubber (Paragraph 0056), and the outer protective layer comprises cotton (Paragraph 0068) or silicone (Paragraph 0056) for the purpose of having a laminate structure with excellent adhesive characteristics (Paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the specific materials in the modified Yaeger in order to form a laminate structure with excellent adhesive characteristics as taught by Ono et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “While Yaeger discloses several embodiments of a rodent-resistant barrier, only the first two embodiments suggest the use of stainless steel mesh. These embodiments, however, are pre- formed protective sleeves applied around pipes and do not involve adhesive extending through a mesh layer to bond both a protective layer and a target surface, as recited in the claims. The third embodiment of Yaeger, which describes a duct-tape style product with a built-in mesh, does not specify that the mesh is stainless steel and therefore does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of a stainless steel wire mesh with adhesive extending through the mesh.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yaeger uses the term “reinforced mesh” (Paragraph 0024) to describe the mesh that is integrated into the duct tape of the third embodiment. The same term is used to describe the stainless steel mesh in the other two embodiments in Paragraphs 0021 and 0022, which are also referring the to stainless steel mesh in Paragraph 0019. Yaeger also clearly states that the stainless steel is integrated into the duct table which means it is incorporated into the tape, thereby allowing the tape to adhere to a second surface while the mesh is present, meaning that the adhesive has to extend through the mesh. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the reinforced mesh used in the third embodiment is the same materials used in the first and second embodiments.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Even if one were to consider combining Short's teachings of a duct tape having a thermoplastic rubber adhesive and a protective layer with Yaeger's rodent-resistant mesh, there would be neither a motivation nor a suggestion in the references to make such a combination.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Yaeger and Short are using a duct tape material. Paragraphs 0019 and 0024 clearly state that the rodent sleeve is made from a duct-tape material with a mesh built in. Short clearly teaches what materials may be used to form a duct tape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use the duct tape of Short to show the materials used in the construction of Yaeger.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Finally, Applicant notes that the claimed invention recites a protective layer comprising low-density polyethylene (LDPE) having a thickness of about 25 µm to about 150 µm. Neither Yaeger nor Short teaches or suggests a protective layer having this thickness range.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Short teaches a duct tape (Abstract) having an adhesive layer comprises a thermoplastic rubber (Abstract); and a protective layer bonded to the adhesive at the second surface (Column 5, lines 5 – 36), wherein the protective layer comprises a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) film (Column 5, lines 32 – 36) having a thickness of 25 µm to about 150 µm (Column 8, lines 48 – 53, wherein 1.6 mils is equal to 40.6 µm).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited to show the state of the art with regard to adhesive going through meshes.
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 Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Patricia L. Nordmeyer/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/pln/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 March 24, 2026