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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Number 5,531,393 (hereinafter “Salzsauler”), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0047468 (hereinafter “Papadopoulos”).Regarding claim 8 Salzsauler teaches a stretched plastic film (reinforced stretch film) comprising an elongated base sheet of plastic stretch film having a longitudinal axis and two side edges 15, 17, where each side edge 15, 17 of the elongated base sheet is folded inward along a lateral direction a first time creating a single folded edge 19, 21 to further strengthen and reinforce each side edge (abstract; Figures 3a and 5; and column 7, lines 16-23, and column 8, lines 9-21). Salzsauler does not explicitly teach each single folded edge 19, 21 is folded inward along the lateral direction a second time creating a double folded edge to further strengthen and reinforce each side edge of the reinforced stretch film. Papadopoulos teaches a packaging film comprising reinforcement strips (reinforced stretched film) made of a stretchable or stretched polymer film material (abstract, and paragraphs [0040] and [0100]). Papadopoulos teaches at least one edge of the reinforcement strips may be hemmed, bunched or folded at least once longitudinally (side edge being folded inward along the lateral direction a first time creating a single fold edge), which further strengthens and reinforces the at least one side edge to prevent tearing at the edges (paragraphs [0051], [0063], and [0064]). Papadopoulos teaches an embodiment where the lateral edges are folded twice, where the double folding further reinforces the reinforcement strip against tearing (paragraph [0111]). Papadopoulos illustrates the double folding structure of the reinforcement strips 5, 6 corresponds to each side edge of the strips being folded inward along the lateral direction a first time creating a single fold edge, and where each single folded edge is folded inward along the lateral direction a second time creating a double folded edge (Figure 9). Salzsauler and Papadopoulos are analogous inventions in the field of stretched films having folded edges. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the single edge folding of Salzsauler with the double edge folding of Papadopoulos to provide even further reinforcement to the edge of the stretched plastic film of Salzsauler against tearing.Regarding claim 9 In addition, Salzsauler teaches the stretched plastic film (reinforced stretch film) is stretched along its length (abstract and claim 1).Regarding claim 10 In addition, Salzsauler teaches the stretched plastic film (reinforced stretch film) is stretched along the length thereof between 50% and 300% of the original length of the film (abstract and claim 1).Regarding claim 11 In addition, Salzsauler teaches the stretched plastic film (reinforced stretch film) is rolled around a core (Figures 2 and 3a).Regarding claim 12 In addition, Salzsauler teaches the stretched plastic film (reinforced stretch film) has increased strength characteristics due to stretching and folded edges (abstract, and claims 1 and 6).Regarding claim 13 In addition, Salzsauler teaches the plastic film (reinforced stretch film) is stretched to impart a memory to said stretched film (reinforced stretch film) to permit contraction of said stretched film (reinforced stretch film) when unwound to wrap said pallet load (claim 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has provided many duplicate arguments which were previously addressed. The forthcoming remarks will be directed to new arguments which were not previously addressed. Any portion of the examiner’s remarks which does not explicitly address an argument from the submission on 14 October 2025 is to be considered a previous argument which was previously addressed. The examiner’s remarks in the previous Office action, see pages 5-6 in the Office action mailed on 14 May 2015, are incorporated herein.
The applicant argued, see page 8, Papadopoulos does not disclose a stretch film having opposite outermost side edges double folded for reinforcement, rather, as shown in Figures 14-15, Papadopoulos’ use of reinforcement elements, which are fixed on the base film (paragraph [0040]), are shown used adjacent a margin, i.e., edge of the base film, and the base film (Figure 15), or both of the base film and the reinforcement element (Figure 14), are hemmed together to form a hemming zone. The examiner respectfully submits this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record. The examiner does not rely on the embodiments highlighted by the applicant to reject the claims. That is, the base film and the structure of the reinforcement elements from Figures 13-15, and as described in paragraphs [0113] – [0115], are disclosed as belonging to “various possible forms of other embodiments,” “a further embodiment,” and “a still further embodiment”, respectfully. See paragraphs [0089] – [0093] from Papadopoulos. The examiner relies on the teaching of the embodiment represented in Figure 9, and the paragraphs highlighted in the rejection of record. Papadopoulos’ teachings are not limited to the embodiments highlighted by the applicant. The rejection of record contemplates modifying the single folded edge of the stretched plastic film of Salzsauler with the double folded edge of the reinforcement strips (reinforced stretched film) 5, 6 made of a stretchable or stretched polymer film material of Papadopoulos to further reinforce the edges of the reinforcement strips (reinforced stretched film), as taught by Papadopoulos. A person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the modification of the stretched plastic film of Salzsauler by Papadopoulos, as proposed in the rejection of record, has sufficient motivation and would arrive at the applicant’s claims.
The applicant argued Papadopoulos does not teach the use of the reinforcement element as an independent film that is not fixed to a base film. This argument is not persuasive. Papadopoulos teaches the double folded edge further reinforces the edges of the reinforcement strips, and does not teach the base film is required to provide such a further reinforcement to said reinforcement strips. Therefore, it would have required nothing more than routine skill to impart the double folded structure taught by Papadopoulos to the stretched plastic film of Salzsauler to yield a stretched plastic film which exhibits an analogous further reinforcement to the edges of said stretched plastic film.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783