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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 02/09/2026:
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are pending.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “is blown in a ratio no less than 1,.1:1” to “is blown in a ratio no less than 1,1:1” or “is blown in a ratio no less than 1.1:1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen (US 20110095448), and further in view of Rasmussen2 (US5626944).
Regarding claim 1, Rasmussen teaches a process to orient a high molecular weight polymer film, formed from molten, dispersed or dissolved state ([0003] first a strong almost uniaxial melt-orientation during the drawdown from the extrusion die, or still better an almost uniaxial orientation while the polymer material is semimolten and [0024] The invention has particular importance in connection with longitudinal stretching of the film which mainly consists of HDPE, PP or blends of these polymers),
characterised in that as a start of this orientation process the film becomes embossed in a pattern of thin short lines, thereby becoming oriented within these embossments ([0043] In the photograph FIG. 1, the zone indicated as (1) is the pleated HDPE film before any orientation has been carried out… The majority of the film is still not oriented, apart from its melt orientation; the film has a melt orientation and therefore the film will be oriented within the embossments),
whereafter the orientation process is continued in m.d. stretching ([0010] The present invention provides an apparatus for longitudinal orientation of a thermoplastic film (4) comprising, in sequence in the machine direction… a longitudinal stretching station for stretching the film longitudinally in the solid state, comprising one or more spaced pairs of stretching rollers (9, 10) or bars and [0043] The zone (2) has been through a first step of stretching at 15.degree. C., namely in the ratio 1.5:1, by which it has become m.d.-oriented within "stretching lines" extending on the bias and crisscrossing each other. The majority of the film is still not oriented, apart from its melt orientation. The orientation produced by the cold stretching can directly be observed, since stretching of film from HDPE or PP at temperatures lower than about 40-50.degree. C. creates closed micro-voids, which act like grains of white pigment),
whereby the embossed and oriented lines gradually grow and develop until essentially the entire film has become a continuous oriented film ([0044] The zone (3) has been through a 3rd step of stretching, in example (1) the final step, and has turned white all over, while the biased, criss-crossing stretching lines gradually have grown and developed into a structure which on macro scale is homogeneous),
While Rasmussen teaches the oriented film would be most suitable for subsequently making cross-laminates, Rasmussen fails to explicitly teach wherein two films become embossed simultaneously, while one is arranged on top of the other.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to orienting films by stretching, Rasmussen2 teaches a cross-laminate comprising two films that are embossed simultaneously, while one is arranged on top of the other (col 4 line 10-12). Embossing two films simultaneously while one is arranged on top of the other forms cross-laminates with improved quality and at a highly increased production capacity in comparison to laminating the films after orienting.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have two films of Rasmussen become embossed simultaneously, while one is arranged on top of the other, as taught by Rasmussen2, for the benefit of forming cross-laminates with improved quality and at a highly increased production capacity.
Regarding claim 2, Rasmussen modified with Rasmussen2 teaches the process according to claim 1. Further, Rasmussen teaches that the high molecular weight polymer mainly consists of polyolefin, polyamide, polyester, polyvinylidene chloride, or a biodegradable polymer ([0024] The invention has particular importance in connection with longitudinal stretching of the film which mainly consists of HDPE, PP or blends of these polymers… However, the invention is also applicable to all other film of thermoplastic polymer material, if such film in the form of narrow strips can be oriented at or near normal room temperature. As examples the invention is applicable to film based on polyamides, polyesters such as polyethyleneterephthalate, polyvinylidenechloride and crystalline copolymers of vinylchloride and vinylindenechloride. It is also expected to become useful for films based on cold-stretchable biodegradable polymer materials).
Regarding claim 3, Rasmussen modified with Rasmussen2 teaches the process according to claim 1. Further, Rasmussen teaches at least two embossment steps ([0054] In the described arrangement, the groove division on roller pair (16) is relatively big, since it requires a relatively low force to form coarse, even pleats or convolutions, and since fine pleats formed at this position might tend to turn into coarse pleats while proceeding to roller pair (17) and [0055] The pitch on roller pair (17) is adapted to double the number of pleats formed by the roller pair (16), and the pitch on roller pair (18) makes a further doubling).
Regarding claim 4, Rasmussen modified with Rasmussen2 teaches the process according to claim 1. Further, Rasmussen teaches that as measured in slack state immediately prior to the continued stretching, the distance between any short lines, is 15 mm ([0070] It was found that a pitch of 15 mm on roller (7) normally is suitable for HDPE or PP based tubular film, if its gauge does not essentially exceed 0.10 mm).
Regarding claim 5, Rasmussen modified with Rasmussen2 teaches the process according to claim 4. Further, Rasmussen teaches that as measured in slack state immediately prior to the continued stretching, the distance between any short lines, is 15 mm ([0070] It was found that a pitch of 15 mm on roller (7) normally is suitable for HDPE or PP based tubular film, if its gauge does not essentially exceed 0.10 mm).
Regarding claim 6, Rasmussen modified with Rasmussen2 teaches the process according to claim 3. Further, Rasmussen teaches that there is formed a pattern of embossed lines, which cross each other ([0043] The zone (2) has been through a first step of stretching at 15.degree. C., namely in the ratio 1.5:1, by which it has become m.d.-oriented within "stretching lines" extending on the bias and crisscrossing each other and [0044] The zone (3) has been through a 3rd step of stretching, in example (1) the final step, and has turned white all over, while the biased, criss-crossing stretching lines gradually have grown and developed into a structure which on macro scale is homogeneous).
Regarding claim 8, Rasmussen modified with Rasmussen2 teaches the process according to claim 1. Further, Rasmussen teaches the process is carried out on a lay-flat tubular film ([0012] FIG. 1 is a photograph illustrating, in perspective view the basic principle that the tendency to transverse contraction of a film during longitudinal orientation is allowed to take place by feeding the film into the stretching zone in pleated state. The photo shows a sample of a lay-flat tubular film, mainly consisting of HDPE, before and after the stretching described in Example 1).
Regarding claim 9, Rasmussen modified with Rasmussen2 teaches the process according to claim 1. Further, Rasmussen teaches at least two embossment steps, as noted in the rejection of claim 3 above. However, Rasmussen fails to teach that the embossment is carried out, first from one outer surface, and then from the other outer surface.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to orienting films by stretching, Rasmussen2 teaches a cross-laminate comprising two films that are embossed on one outer surface and another outer surface (col 4 line 10-12). Embossing two films simultaneously while one is arranged on top of the other forms cross-laminates with improved quality and at a highly increased production capacity in comparison to laminating the films after orienting.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the embossment of Rasmussen modified with Rasmussen2 be carried out, first from one outer surface, and then from the other outer surface, as Rasmussen teaches at least two embossment steps and Rasmussen2 teaches embossing one outer surface and another outer surface, for the benefit of forming cross-laminates with improved quality and at a highly increased production capacity.
Claim(s10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen (US20110095448) and Rasmussen2 (US5626944), and further in view of Rasmussen3 (US20100297401).
Regarding claim 10, Rasmussen modified with Rasmussen2 teaches the process according to claim 1, characterised in that the film originally was a tubular film ([0012] The photo shows a sample of a lay-flat tubular film, mainly consisting of HDPE) extruded from a die ([0085] A tubular film of 100 micron thickness is extruded). While Rasmussen teaches that the best strength properties in a crosslaminate are obtained by forming a uniaxial melt-orientation during the drawdown from the extrusion die ([0003] It is known that the best all-round strength properties in a crosslaminate are obtained by the following steps of orientation: first a strong almost uniaxial melt-orientation during the drawdown from the extrusion die), Rasmussen fails to explicitly teach the tubular film is formed by blow molding such that the tubular film is extruded from a circular die, and during draw-down the molten or semi-molten tubular film is blown in a ratio no less than 1,1:1.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to orienting films by stretching, Rasmussen3 teaches forming cross-laminates from tubular films extruded from a circular die, and during draw-down the molten or semi-molten tubular film is blown in a ratio of 1.2: 1 ([0113] Blow ratio about 1.2:1) or a ratio of 2:1 ([0127] This metalocene LLDPE has melting range about 50-60.degree. C. The blow ratio during extrusion was about 2:1). Rasmussen3 teaches that a low blow ratio is needed for the formation of a strong melt/semi-melt orientation ([0079] FIG. 1A represents the film A, which has been extruded in tubular form under formation of a strong melt/semi-melt orientation in the direction of extrusion (low blow ratio)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the tubular film of Rasmussen modified with Ramussen2 be formed by blow molding such that the tubular film is extruded from a circular die, and during draw-down the molten or semi-molten tubular film is blown in a ratio no less than 1,1:1. Rasmussen teaches the best strength properties in a crosslaminate are obtained by forming a uniaxial melt-orientation during the drawdown from the extrusion die, and Rasmussen3 teaches a low blow ratio is needed for the formation of a strong melt/semi-melt orientation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the low blow ratios of Rasmussen3 to form a strong melt/semi-melt orientation that results in the best strength properties in a crosslaminate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant has requested that the limitation “orient” be construed in light of the technical definition that aligns with the specification’s description of molecular alignment (see pg. 6 of Remarks).
However, the specification does not appear to define molecular orientation as the sole definition for “orient” (see “A particular use of m.d. and/or t.d. oriented film is in the manufacture of "cross-laminates", i.e. polymer laminates which in analogy with plywood exhibit criss- crossing molecular orientation” on pg. 1 of specification).
The specification also notes that uniaxial stretch in the machine direction, in the transverse direction, or in both results in an oriented film (“Polymer film is very often used in a form, in which it has been subjected to uniaxial or biaxial stretching carried out in solid state. The uniaxial stretching may be in the machine direction (m.d.) or in the transverse direction (t.d.), and the biaxial stretching may be by one or more steps of m.d. stretching and one or more steps of t.d. stretching, or by combined m.d. and t.d. stretching. Such oriented film is…”- see pg. 1 of specification and “Most practical, an m.d. oriented tubular film”- see pg. 3 of specification).
Therefore, the limitation “orient” is to be interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “orient”, as noted on pg. 8 of the Office Action mailed 11/10/2025, is “to set or arrange in an determinate position especially in relation to the points of the compass”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743