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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.”
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made of Group I without traverse in the reply filed on 2/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 20 recites “use of the adhesive tape according to claim 12 for wrapping cables and forming a cable set”. “Use” claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961), see MPEP 2173.05(q). In Ex parteDunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967), the Board held the following claim to be an improper definition of a process: “The use of a high carbon austenitic iron alloy having a proportion of free carbon as a vehicle brake part subject to stress by sliding friction.” In Clinical Products Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
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 8 and 20 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.
Claim 8 recites “the claimed method according to one of claims 8” rendering the claim indefinite as to how many claims it depends from. It is suggested to be corrected to “the claimed method according to claim 8”.
Claim 20 recites “use of the adhesive tape according to claim 12 for wrapping cables and forming a cable set”, rendering the claim indefinite. Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness, see MPEP 2173.05(q). For purposes of examination, it will be treated as a use of the claimed adhesive tape.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leermann (DE 20 2021 106 836 U1) in view of Manzuch et al. "Chemical Recycling of Polymeric Materials from Waste in the Circular Economy", 9. August 2021.
Regarding claim 1, Leermann teaches a method of making a textile substrate web for use as a component of an adhesive tape, (generic adhesive tape, textile carrier are at least partially made from a recycled plastic [0005]) the method comprising the steps of: making plastic fibers and/or filaments at least partially from the raw material; (The recycled plastic obtained in this way is regularly shredded in order to subsequently provide granules that can be processed by extrusion. This granulate can then be processed into plastic fibers using standard methods. Plastic threads are processed, for example by extrusion using conventional methods [0023]) and forming the plastic fibers and/or filaments made from the raw material into the textile web. (plastic fibers and/or plastic threads for the production of the textile carrier are at least partially made from a recycled plastic [0005])
Leermann does not explicitly teach thermochemically converting plastic waste into raw material.
Manzuch teaches thermochemically converting plastic waste into raw material. Manzuch teaches “Pyrolysis is the core chemical recycling technology for mixed and contaminated plastic waste.” pg. 83, section 9.1. Manzuch teaches “compared to the combustion process, pyrolysis takes place in an oxygen-free atmosphere; hence BFRs may experience very different transformations,” pg.49, para. 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to use the pyrolysis method of chemical recycling taught by Manzuch as the generic recycling method of Leermann because the main advantages noted by experts for chemical recycling related to processing mixed and contaminated waste, see pg. 82, para. 5.
Regarding claim 2, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed the method according to claim 1, wherein the thermochemical conversion takes place largely in the absence of oxygen. Manzuch teaches “compared to the combustion process, pyrolysis takes place in an oxygen-free atmosphere; hence BFRs may experience very different transformations,” pg.49, para. 2.
Regarding claim 3, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the thermochemical conversion is pyrolysis. Manzuch teaches “compared to the combustion process, pyrolysis takes place in an oxygen-free atmosphere; hence BFRs may experience very different transformations,” pg.49, para. 2.
Regarding claim 4, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed method according to claim 3, wherein the pyrolysis predominantly produces pyrolysis oil as the raw material. (Examiner notes that pyrolysis oil is not clearly defined by the claims or instant specification to be a specific chemical. The instant specification states “the product mixture obtained during the pyrolysis has a predominantly liquid fraction, namely pyrolysis oil” see [0017]. Manzuch meets this definition in teaching that some chemical recycling technologies (e.g., pyrolysis) are specific for producing intermediate substances (e.g., pyrolysis oil, waxes etc.) that are used for manufacturing chemical, pg.93. Leermann teaches recycled plastic consists predominantly of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), whereas PE (polyethylene) is used as the new plastic, and both plastics are mixed together for the production of the plastic fibers and/or plastic threads, see [0009]. Manzuch teaches from automotive waste streams the compositions include Polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polycarbonate (PC), acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), rubber, polyurethane (PU) foam (from seat padding), synthetic fabrics and covers, see Table 4-2.)
Regarding claim 5, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed method according to claim 4, further comprising the step of: mixing the pyrolysis oil with fossil oil using the mass balance principle to make the plastic fibers and or filaments. (Leermann teaches mixed forms of shape can be realized by extruding from granules bio-based polymers with synthetic-resins petrochemical basis that are mixed and in this way quasi hybrid fibers or filaments are produced, at least partially based on bio-based polymers with a mass fraction in the substrate band of at least 5% by mass [0020])
Regarding claim 6, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed method according to claim 5, wherein the pyrolysis oil is mixed with the fossil oil in a proportion of up to 100% by mass. (Examiner notes the claim is interpreted to recite 0-100% by mass. Leermann teaches a mass fraction in the substrate band of at least 5% by mass [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed method according to claim 4, wherein the plastic waste that is thermochemically converted into pyrolysis oil is used tires and/or mixed plastic waste. (Leermann teaches recycled plastic consists predominantly of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), whereas PE (polyethylene) is used as the new plastic, and both plastics are mixed together for the production of the plastic fibers and/or plastic threads, see [0009]. Examiner notes that this meet the claimed “mixed plastic waste”).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leermann (DE 20 2021 106 836 U1) in view of Manzuch et al. "Chemical Recycling of Polymeric Materials from Waste in the Circular Economy", 9. August 2021, and in further view of Leermann ‘708 (US 2021/0371708 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Leermann as modified by Manzuch does not meet claimed method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of: adding biobased polymer fibers and/or polymer filaments made from raw materials from the processing of plastic waste to the fibers or filaments made from the raw material used for making the textile web.
Leermann teaches the bio-based polymers are produced using renewable raw materials derived from plant sources, [0003] but teaches this to be a different embodiment.
Leermann ‘708 teaches use of a generic adhesive tape in that according to the invention the textile substrate band is made at least partially with recourse to bio-based polymers [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the bio-based polymers of Leermann ‘708 with the recycled materials of Leermann because the bio-based polymers can be replaced by natural as well as renewable raw materials with practically infinite availability, whereas the synthetic-resins come from limited petrochemical resources, [0013].
Regarding claim 9, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed method according to one of claims 8, further comprising the step of coating the textile substrate web in whole or in part with an adhesive. (Leermann teaches a back coating opposite the adhesive coating has proven particularly advantageous [0013])
Regarding claim 11, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed method according to claim 9, further comprising the step of: wrapping the textile web coated with the adhesive helically or as a longitudinal wrap around goods to be sheathed. (Leermann teaches the adhesive tape is wound around the cables of the cable set in a helical or spiral shape. [0014])
Regarding claim 12, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed method according to claim 11, wherein the goods are cables in automobiles. (in particular as wrapping tape for sheathing cables in automobiles, [0021]).
Regarding claim 20, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed use of the adhesive tape according to claim 12 for wrapping cables and forming a cable set. (an elongated good, such as in particular a cable set, which is sheathed with the adhesive tape in question [0014], in particular as wrapping tape for sheathing cables in automobiles, [0021]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leermann (DE 20 2021 106 836 U1) in view of Manzuch et al. "Chemical Recycling of Polymeric Materials from Waste in the Circular Economy", 9. August 2021, and in further view of Leermann ‘708 (US 2021/0371708 A1) and Lodde et al. (US 2016/0168427 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed method according to claim 9, wherein the adhesive is a hot-melt pressure-sensitive adhesive. (Leermann ‘708 teaches a hot-melt adhesive or those based on acrylate [0017])
Leermann as modified does not teach the adhesive is pressure-sensitive UV-cross linkable.
Lodde teaches the adhesive is pressure-sensitive UV-cross linkable. (Lodde teaches automotive sector, cable sets are often wrapped with adhesive tapes [0003] known adhesives are usable here as “pressure-sensitive adhesives,” in particular UV-crosslinkable adhesives, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select the pressure-sensitive UV-crosslinkable adhesive of Lodde as the generic acrylate adhesive of Leermann because minimal thickness and excellent values for abrasion resistance are achieved for a tape, see [0009].
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LEE ALICIA ET AL: "Tertiary recycling of plastics waste: an analysis of feedstock, chemical and biological degradation methods", JOURNAL OF MATERIAL CYCLES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, Vol. 23, pg. 32-43. September 2020, XP037334726, ISSN: 1438-4957, DOI: 10.1007/S10163-020-01106-2
Abstract: While chemical recycling methods are simpler and are already pilot tested at an industrial level, biological recycling either via microorganisms or biological-derived enzymes are as yet unproven but highly promising technologies. Looking forward, trend shifts towards more ecologically-friendly processes will drive initiatives to close the loop on commercial plastic production.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744