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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Leermann does not meet amended claim 1 because Leermann is “a mechanical-recylate/polymer-processing teaching. It is technically different from obtaining a liquid pyrolysis oil by thermochemical conversion of waste plastics and using that oil as an upstream feedstock” but this is not found persuasive. The rejection of amended claim 1 relies on Leermann to teach making generic adhesive tape and a textile carrier from a recycled plastic [0005]. The upstream step of obtaining the raw material and thermochemically converting plastic waste is met by Manzuch.
Applicant argues that Manzuch is a “generic disclosure that pyrolysis may produce various intermediate substances, including pyrolysis oil and waxes, does not directly and unambiguously disclose that the product mixture obtained by pyrolysis predominantly comprises pyrolysis oil” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that amended claim 1 is equally broad and recites broadly that plastic waste is converted into “pyrolysis oil”. 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. Both Leermann and Manzuch teach specific polymers that can be used in the recycling process, while the claim broadly recites recycling of any plastic material with a pyrolysis step. Leermann teaches recycled plastic consists predominantly of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), whereas PE (polyethylene), see [0009]. Manzuch teaches from automotive waste streams the compositions include Polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), see Table 4-2. Therefore, the teaching of Leermann and Manzuch renders obvious the broadly recited process.
Regarding previous claim 5, Applicant argues “in the claimed invention, the pyrolysis oil and fossil oil are feedstocks that may be distilled, cracked and then converted by polymerization, polycondensation or polyaddition into a granulate that is subsequently processed into fibers or filaments. The cited teaching concerning biobased polymer blends does not address this feedstock route” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that these steps are not recited in previous claim 5 or currently amended claim 1. Claim 1 currently recites only making plastic fibers…by mixing the pyrolysis oil. This mixing step is not limited to granulate or feedstock routes. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant argues “the invention deliberately avoids the limitations of
sorted PET recycling and enables the use of mixed plastic waste or tire-derived waste through a chemical-recycling feedstock route” but this is not found persuasive. Claim 7 presently recites “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 meets the claimed “mixed plastic waste”.
Applicant argues “in the application, the mass-balance principle is tied to the technical feedstock route in which pyrolysis oil and fossil oil are used to produce polymer material that is then processed into fibers or filaments. This is materially different from the direct blending of already-formed polymers” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Examiner notes the specification (pg. 6) only describes “the so-called mass-balance principle” where “fossil oil is typically first distilled”. Therefore, Applicant has not clearly defined a term in the specification to limit the claims. The term “mass-balance principle” is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation to include any process with a weight ratio of ingredients. Moreover, the term “mass balance” does not appear in the currently amended claims.
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, 2, and 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 predominantly consisting of pyrolysis oil, wherein the pyrolysis oil is mixed with the fossil oil in a proportion of up to 100% by mass.
Manzuch teaches thermochemically converting plastic waste into raw material predominantly consisting of pyrolysis oil. 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. 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.) 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 10 wt% recycled plastic and 90 wt% virgin plastic to 90 wt.% recycled plastic and 10 wt.% virgin plastic for the production of the plastic fibers and/or plastic threads in question [0008]).
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 7, Leermann as modified by Manzuch meets the claimed method according to claim 1, 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 meets the claimed “mixed plastic waste”).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, and 12 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]).
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights