DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 1 and 2 and adding new claims 8 and 9, was entered on 9/26/25.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Cosgrove and Okuyama fail to teach the newly added limitation concerning crosslinking. This is persuasive and a new rejection is presented below in response to this amendment.
Applicant argues that neither reference addresses the specific problem of particle migration, bleed or solvent fogging. This is not persuasive. These features are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the invention as now claimed specifically recognizes the harsh engine environment. This is not persuasive. This features are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the limitation concerning crosslinking is explicitly recited and required by the claim, but any further use or benefits that stem from that crosslinking are not required by the claim.
Applicant argues that, to arrive at the claimed invention, one would have to relocate the odor absorbing function into the PSA. This is not persuasive. Cosgrove teaches the inclusion of the odor control agent in the PSA (¶ 0031).
Applicant also distinguishes the claimed invention by pointing out that the objective of immobilizing the absorber particles is to enhance long-term odor oppression. This is not persuasive. This features are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosgrove et al. (US 2013/0210305) in light of Okuyama (US 2014/0165844) and Kulper et al. (US 2002/0125037).
Claims 1, 2 and 4-9: Cosgrove teaches a method of forming a tape which is later wrapped around automotive cabling (Abst.; ¶ 0002), comprising the steps of: providing a textile fabric of polyester or polyethylene as a substrate strip (¶ 0018); applying a rubber (i.e. claimed hot-melt) adhesive to the face of the strip (¶¶ 0023-0025), wherein the adhesive includes an odor control agent (¶ 0031); and wrapping the adhesive tape around a bundle of cables in an automobile (¶ 0002).
Cosgrove is silent regarding the odor control agent used and the amount included. Okuyama teaches a fabric having an adhesive layer disposed thereon, wherein the adhesive includes an odor control agent (Abst.) and explains that suitable odor control agents include zeolite (¶ 0034) and that the amount of agent included can be varied to achieve a desired deodorizing effect (¶ 0034). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected zeolite as the odor control agent because Okuyama teaches that zeolite is suitable for this purpose and to have included the zeolite in a grammage of 0.1-10% by weight depending on the desired deodorizing effect with the predictable expectation of success.
Cosgrove teaches that the adhesive used for the automotive cabling is a rubber (¶ 0024) and fails to teach or suggest crosslinking. Kulper teaches a method of forming a tape which is wrapped around automotive cabling (Abst.) and explains using, as the adhesive, a polymer polyacrylate which is later crosslinked instead of the traditional natural rubber and synthetic rubber of Cosgrove provides improvements in temperature stability (¶ 0061). Kulper further explains that this crosslinking is affected by UV radiation after applying the adhesive coating (¶¶ 0037, 0052-0053). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a polyacrylate adhesive which is then crosslinked in place of the rubber of Cosgrove in order to have improved the temperature stability of the automotive cabling with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 3: It is implicit in Okuyama that the zeolite is in pure form because Okuyama does not teach that the zeolite is provided as a dispersion, solution or encapsulated particle (see, e.g., pp. 6:26-7:4 in applicant’s specification for clarification of the term “pure form”).
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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712