DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 without traverse in the reply filed on 03 December 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 124 (e.g., paragraph 0020 on page 5). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Müssig et al. (US 2011/0067799) as evidenced by the BASF Novolen® 2309 L data sheet.
Müssig is directed to adhesive tape comprising a carrier and a polyolefin adhesive coating on at least one side of the carrier (paragraph 0011). The polyolefin may be polypropylene (paragraph 0014). In one embodiment, the adhesive tape may be used as a sealing tape for joints to provide the joints with an airtight seal (paragraphs 0432-0434).
In one embodiment, the carrier film is made of Novolen® 2309 L and the adhesive comprises IN FUSE 9507 (paragraphs 0451-0452). IN FUSE 9507 is a copolymer of ethylene and 1-octene (paragraph 0092) while Novolen® 2309 L is a polypropylene (see the BASF Novolen® data sheet).
Regarding the limitation in claim 1 that the seam tape is "configured to independently and indirectly gap couple gas-holding panels," this limitation is satisfied since the sealing tape taught by Müssig is designed form an airtight seal across a joint. Since the sealing tape is designed to form an airtight seal across a joint, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect its configuration to be capable of gap coupling gas-holding panels.
Regarding the limitation that the second substrate (i.e., the substrate of the seam tape) has a melting temperature that is greater than the melt temperature of the first substrate (i.e., the substrate of the panels), this is directed to an intended use of the seam tape since the claims are directed to a seam tape and not a product comprising panels joined by the seam tape. The courts have held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed product is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed product from a prior art product satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 8, a copolymer of ethylene and 1-octene is a polymer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
Claims 3 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Müssig et al. (US 2011/0067799) as evidenced by the BASF Novolen® 2309 L data sheet.
Regarding claim 3, Müssig teaches all the limitations, as outlined above, except for illustrating an embodiment wherein the carrier film is polyamide or polyester. However, Müssig does teach that the carrier may be a film made of polyester (paragraph 0444).
Based on the limited number of disclosed materials for the carrier layer of the sealing tape, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged an embodiment wherein polyester is used as the carrier. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of the explicitly disclosed materials for the carrier of the sealing tape.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the tensile strength, tear strength, and response to radiant heat flux of a tape to be a function of the materials used. Since Müssig teaches the same materials for their tape as used in the instant invention, one of ordinary skill would expect it to intrinsically satisfy the limitations of claims 9 and 10, particularly since the Novolen® data sheet reports a yield tensile strength of 3770 psi.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the seam shear strength and seam peel strength of a tape to be a function of the materials of the tape as well as the materials to which the tape is adhered. As such, these limitations are a functions of the intended use of the tape, and the courts have held that the manner in which a claimed product is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed product from a prior art product satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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, Callie Shosho, can be reached on 571 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights