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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the double folded edge is formed integrally from the base sheet without separate reinforcement strips attached to the base sheet.” There is no support for the negative limitation as identified above by the underlined portion of the claim in the original disclosure. It has been held that: (i) any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; and (ii) the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. See MPEP §2173.05(i).
Claims 9-13 are included based on their ultimate dependency from claim 8.
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 8-13 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 limitation "the base sheet" a total of three times in lines 7 and 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the applicant is referring to the previously recited “elongated base sheet.” However, the reference to both “the elongated base sheet” and “the base sheet” thereafter muddles the record because two different recitations appear to represent the same feature of the claim. To further prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the intent of the applicant was to recite these portions of the claim as “the elongated base sheet” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claims 9-13 are included based on their ultimate dependency from claim 8.
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 teaches the folded edges strengthen the edges of the film against tearing (column 4, lines 42-49). 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 made of a stretchable or stretched polymer film material (abstract, and paragraphs [0040] and [0100]). Papadopoulos teaches at least one or both lateral edges of the reinforcement strips may be folded at least once longitudinally (side edge being folded inward along the lateral direction a first time creating a single fold edge), which increases the strength and resistance to tearing of the reinforcement strip 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 to prevent tearing. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the single folded edge for each of the two side edges 15, 17 of Salzsauler with the double folded edge of Papadopoulos to further reinforce the edges of the stretched plastic film of Salzsauler against tearing. The modification of Salzsauler by Papadopoulos corresponds to a double folded edge being formed integrally from the elongated base sheet without separate reinforcement strips attached to the elongated base sheet.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 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued: (1) Salzsauler does not teach or suggest folding each single folded edge a second time to create a double folded edge on the base sheet; and (2) Papadopoulos does not teach or suggest: (i) double folding the side edges of a non-perforated base sheet; and (ii) the double folding is in regards to the reinforcement elements/strips, not the main base sheet; and (3) the examiner’s mapping of Papadopoulos’s double-folded strips onto the main base sheet side edges of Salzsauler is not supported by the reference. These arguments are not persuasive. Regarding (1), the examiner conceded that Salzsauler does not explicitly teach folding each single folded edge a second time to create a double folded edge on the base sheet. This feature has been found to be obvious over the modification of Salzsauler by Papadopoulos, as detailed in the rejection of record. Regarding (2)(i), the applicant’s reliance on a piecemeal analysis of the reference fails to provide evidence of error by the examiner in the rejection of record. It has been held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, the double folding of the reinforcement strips do not correspond to double folding of a perforated sheet. Regarding (2)(ii), the examiner agrees that the double folding taught by Papadopoulos is in regard to the disclosed reinforcement elements/strips. However, the applicant has failed to provide any persuasive reasoning for why this reliance fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Regarding (3), the examiner respectfully submits this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record. As is detailed in the rejection of record, it is the side edges of Salzsauler’s film which are modified by the teachings of Papadopoulos to arrive at the claims. There is no contemplation from the examiner in the rejection of record to provide the reinforcement strips of Papadopoulos onto the main sheet of Salzsauler, contrary to the position taken by the applicant.
The applicant argued the motivation recited by the examiner is hindsight-driven and lack support in the cited art. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends the motivation relied upon by the examiner is explicitly recited in the prior art. See paragraph [0111] from Papadopoulos. The examiner does not rely on improper hindsight reasoning to reject the claims.
The applicant argued Salzsauler’s single-folded edges, in combination with pre-stretching and oscillation, already solves edge tearing and roll-formation problems for its non-perforated, embossed, pre-stretched film, and nothing in Salzsauler indicates that its single-fold edges are inadequate. The examiner respectfully submits there is no requirement that a primary reference must identify a deficiency to be improved upon by a secondary reference. In other words, motivation to modify a primary reference may come from a secondary reference. In summary, Salzsauler teaches the single folded edges strengthen the edges of the film against tearing. Papadopoulos teaches folded edges of the reinforcement strip increases the strength and resistance to tearing of the reinforcement strip at its edges. Papadopoulos also teaches double folding further reinforces the reinforcement strip against tearing. Therefore, the examiner is of the position that providing the double folded edges disclosed by Papadopoulos to the film of Salzsauler would result in an analogous further improvement against tearing to the film taught by Salzsauler. When considering these substantial similarities, the rejection is considered to be proper.
The applicant argued Papadopoulos’s double folding serves a different purpose in a different architecture, which is to prevent tearing around macro-holes of a perforated film. The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Papadopoulos teaches the double folding of the reinforcement strips prevents tearing of the reinforcement strips themselves, and the reinforcement strips are not directed to a perforated film; but rather the reinforcement strips are applied onto the perforated film. The examiner additionally notes while Papadopoulos does teach the reinforcement strips do prevent a propagation of a tear from forming in the perforated main film, Papadopoulos also teaches the folding of the edges of the reinforcement strips prevents tearing of the reinforcement strips. See at least paragraph [0063] from Papadopoulos.
The applicant argued the claimed invention provides an unexpected advantage not suggested by the combination, which is an increased strength to the claimed film with a combination of stretching and the double folded edges. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that this argument is not supported by facts. Salzsauler recognizes the film has increased strength characteristics due to stretching and folded edges. See the rejection of claim 12. Papadopoulos also recognizes that the implementation of a double folded edge provides a further improvement to tearing resistance when compared to a single folded edge.
The examiner additionally notes dependent claims 9-13 are obvious over the prior art for at least the same reasons as independent claim 8, discussed above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights