DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
In response to the amendment received 9/22/2025, the following objections and rejections have been withdrawn from the previous office action:
Objections to claim 1
35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-9
35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-9
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20110210471A1, hereafter Rasmussen '471, in view of Published Application US20160039138A1, hereafter Rasmussen '138.
Regarding claim 1, Rasmussen ‘471 discloses a procedure wherein a tubular high molecular weight polymer ([0024] 50% or more HDPE) film which has been longitudinally stretched and therefore is longitudinally shrinkable ([0037] Fig 2, longitudinal stretching by rollers 107-112), is converted by helical cutting to a second polymer film ([0042] Fig 2 tubular sheet is cut [0025] by helical cutting), whereby one edge of the helically cut film becomes longer than the other edge when laid flat and tensionless on the floor in a relaxed state (this is implicit, as it is the intended result of the process step positively recited – see MPEP 2111.04 (I), further, this quality is disclosed on page 1 of the present specification as the expected consequence of helical cutting of longitudinally oriented tubular polymer films (“…the inventor has observed that there is still an outstanding problem in connection with helical cutting of longitudinally oriented, tubular polymer film. When such a film is laid flat and tensionless on the floor, one edge becomes slightly longer than the other edge…”)), characterized in that the second film is converted to a third film by continuously advancing the second film in a first direction towards a lineary zone which extends perpendicularly to the edges of the cut film (see annotated Fig 2, advancing film along mandrel 14 until it is [0043] pulled by the driven winding unit 20), and in direct succession thereto moving the second film at velocity (v) in a second direction which forms a small angle (a) to the first direction, wherein the velocity (v) and angle (a) being selected to reduce or totally eliminate the difference between the lengths of the edges of the third film ([0043] Fig 2, angle of cut is determined by ratio between the speeds of rotating of the unit (1) and the rolls (11), direction of winding unit (20) is at small angle to direction of mandrel (14) axis; Fig 2, edges of film are straight when wound onto winding unit (20); the examiner notes that since the edges of the film are straight, it is clear the differences in length of the edges of the second film were mitigated by selection of roller speed and angle of cut, as the angle and speed could instead have been selected such that the film was cut at an angle not conducive to the speed of the film conveyance in the second direction, resulting in varying edge lengths and film widths and wrinkles and other assorted negative qualities in the cut film that one skilled in the art would expect from the helical cutting angle not being selected to match the film conveyance speed).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rasmussen ‘471 is silent on (1) the second polymer film then being heated to a temperature lower than but close to its melting range and relaxed in order to partly or totally eliminate the shrinkability as well as (2) converting the second film to the third film while still heating the film and (3) the third film being flat and free of banana-shaped distortions.
In the analogous art of blown film processing, Rasmussen ‘138 discloses heating the film, after stretching, to an elevated temperature that is below its melting range in order to retain a memory of its orientation state, which results in a lower than original yield tension when the film is stretched again after being relaxed, resulting in improved tear and puncture properties ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Rasmussen ‘471 with the additional heating of the second film to a temperature lower than but close to its melting range after stretching as disclosed by Rasmussen ‘138 in order to improve the film’s tear and puncture properties, as suggested by Rasmussen ‘138 ([0030]). The examiner notes that because the claimed method steps are met by the cited combination of Rasmussen ‘471 with Rasmussen ‘138, and because Rasmussen ‘471 discloses the proper stabilization of the film results in a reduced tendency to curl or roll up ([0006-0007] too low a stabilization increases tendency to curl; [0008] main purpose to reduce such stabilization problems; [0013] disclosed stabilization method became more efficient; [0044] cut sheet is flat) the resulting claimed quality of the product, which is that the third film is flat and free of banana-shaped distortions, is also inherently met by the combination.
The examiner notes that the final limitation of the claim, "to reduce or eliminate curling of corners and avoid wrinkling", is understood to be expressing the result of the previous limitation "wherein the velocity (v) and angle (a) are selected to reduce or totally eliminate the difference between the lengths of the edges of the third film" which as stated above is met by the combination, and as such this last limitation is also inherently met by the combination (MPEP 2112 (IV)).
Regarding claim 2, Rasmussen ‘471 further discloses a separate or inline heat-stabilization step ([0027] stabilization at 70-90°C over heated rollers).
Regarding claim 3, Rasmussen ‘471 further discloses that the film mainly consists of a polyolefin ([0024] 50% or more HDPE or crystalline PP).
Regarding claim 4, Rasmussen ‘471 further discloses an apparatus suitable for carrying out the procedure of claim 1 (Fig 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Rasmussen ‘471 further discloses a product obtained by the procedure according to claim 1, including a product which further has been cross-laminated with a manufactured film ([0029] implicit product of “optional further steps” including crosslamination with a similar, simultaneously produced, obliquely oriented film). That being said, product-by-process claims such as present claim 5 are only limited by the structure of the product claimed. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (MPEP 2113 (I)).
Regarding claim 7, Rasmussen ‘471 further discloses that the film mainly consists of a polyolefin HDPE or PP ([0024] 50% or more HDPE or crystalline PP).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20110210471A1, hereafter Rasmussen '471, in view of Published Application US20160039138A1, hereafter Rasmussen '138, as stated above for claim 2, and further in view of Published Application US20080193747A1, hereafter MacDonald.
Regarding claim 6, modified Rasmussen ‘471 is silent on wherein the separate or inline heat-stabilization step is added under relaxation.
In the analogous art of film stretching, MacDonald discloses wherein the separate or inline heat-stabilization step is added under relaxation ([0039] film is further heat stabilized by heating it under minimal physical restraint to produce a film with very low residual shrinkage and consequently high dimensional stability).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify Rasmussen ‘471 to perform the separate heat stabilization step under relaxation in order to produce a film with very low residual shrinkage and consequently high dimensional stability, as suggested by MacDonald ([0039]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20110210471A1, hereafter Rasmussen '471, in view of Published Application US20160039138A1, hereafter Rasmussen '138, as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of Published Application US20170136759A1, hereafter Rasmussen ‘759.
Regarding claim 8, modified Rasmussen ‘471 is silent on the film mainly consisting of a biodegradable polymer.
In the analogous art of film stretching, Rasmussen ‘759 discloses that the film mainly consists of a biodegradable polymer ([0033] biodegradable polymers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select a biodegradable polymer as disclosed by Rasmussen ‘759 in order to improve the sustainability of the product, and further because the selection of known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 6 of applicant’s remarks that one skilled in the art, starting at Rasmussen ‘471, would not arrive at the presently claimed invention without hindsight reconstruction, since Rasmussen ‘471 is not directed to reducing edge length difference, the examiner disagrees, and notes it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, as stated in the rejection, one skilled in the art would have understood the angled withdrawal of the helically cut film would have the purpose of reducing such length differences imparted by the helical cut.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant’s remarks that simply modifying ‘471 does not provide a predictable path to the “desired result” because ‘471 lacks the success criteria now embedded in the claim’s structure, the examiner disagrees. As stated in the rejection, the final limitation of claim 1, "to reduce or eliminate curling of corners and avoid wrinkling" is an inherent result of the process claimed, and since the process claimed is met, so too is the inherent result (MPEP 2112 (IV)).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 11 of applicant’s remarks that ‘471 does not recognize or address banana-shaped distortions arising from relaxation-induced biased shrinkage, the examiner notes, as stated in the rejection, that '471 discloses straight edges of the film when it is wound on the winding unit (20) (Fig 2), that the angle of the helical cut is determined by the ratio between the speeds of rotating the unit (1) and the rolls (11) ([0043], Fig 2), and that the direction of the winding unit (20) is at the small angle to the direction of the mandrel (14) axis. Thus, the differences in length of the edges of the film were mitigated by the selection of film conveying speed and angle of the cut to match the angle of the second direction to the first direction.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 11 of applicant’s remarks that the claim requires same-plane movement without such deviations as those of the S-path rollers of ‘471, the examiner disagrees, and notes, as of the most recent amendment, this limitation is not claimed.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 11 of applicant’s remarks that no selection of velocity or angle is taught in ‘471 for edge equalization in a relaxed state; stabilization merely reduces general curling/splittability, not targeted banana (shape) correction, the examiner notes "The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant" (MPEP 2144 (IV)). In this case, as stated in the rejection, the motivation to modify ‘471 with ‘138 is in order to improve the film’s tear and puncture properties, as suggested by Rasmussen ‘138 ([0030]). The examiner notes that because the claimed method steps are met by the cited combination of Rasmussen ‘471 with Rasmussen ‘138, and because Rasmussen ‘471 discloses the proper stabilization of the film results in a reduced tendency to curl or roll up ([0006-0007] too low a stabilization increases tendency to curl; [0008] main purpose to reduce such stabilization problems; [0013] disclosed stabilization method became more efficient; [0044] cut sheet is flat) the resulting claimed quality of the product, which is that the third film is flat and free of banana-shaped distortions, is also inherently met by the combination.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 12 of applicant’s remarks that Rasmussen ‘138 teaches away from claim 1’s goal of a uniformly flat, non-shrinking third film free of banana distortions as this document is directed to producing a film which is shrinkable in the direction (1) via patterned heating, the examiner notes that Rasmussen ‘138 discloses the produced film is shrinkable only in one direction, and only for regions (B) which are not heat treated as described in [0033], and further Rasmussen ‘138 was only cited for the teaching in [0030], “The inventor was found that a film which first has been stretched and then subjected to shrinkage at an elevated temperature, but below its melting range, has retained a memory of its orientation state. The yield tension found, when it is brought back from its relaxed state into the same oriented state, is lower than the original yield tension, and the yield takes place more gradual. This is an advantage, e.g., for tear and puncture properties”, which is only described to apply to regions (A). The examiner further notes "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." (MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 12 of applicant’s remarks that neither reference identifies nor seeks to rectify the specific "banana-shaped" distortion issue from biased shrinkage in helically cut films, the examiner notes the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, Rasmussen ‘471 discloses the problem of curling and its link to proper stabilization, as well as the goal of improving the stabilization to reduce those related issues, including curling ([0006-0007] too low a stabilization increases tendency to curl; [0008] main purpose to reduce such stabilization problems; [0013] disclosed stabilization method became more efficient; [0044] cut sheet is flat). Thus, the modification of Rasmussen ‘471 with Rasmussen ‘138 results in a flat product that is inherently free of the banana-shaped distortions, as claimed, as well as having the benefits of puncture resistance as suggested by Rasmussen ‘138, as stated above in the rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 13 of applicant’s remarks that there is no suggestion in ‘471 or (‘138) to combine their teachings in a manner that would result in the specific velocity-angle-temperature synergy defined in the pending claims and that the modification would likely result in a textured, pleated film that still retains its original edge-length distortion, rather than the flat, high-quality film required for cross-lamination, the examiner notes the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Rasmussen ‘138 was cited only for the teaching disclosed in [0030] relating to heating the film after stretching to a higher temperature below its melting temperature, as stated in the rejection above.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 13 of applicant’s remarks that a person skilled in the art would not arrive at the flat, distortion-free film through the angular annealing mechanism by the combination of '471 and '138, the examiner notes, as stated above and in the rejection, and that this is the intended result of the claimed method as executed. Rasmussen ‘471 discloses the problem of curling and its link to proper stabilization, as well as the goal of improving the stabilization to reduce those related issues, including curling ([0006-0007] too low a stabilization increases tendency to curl; [0008] main purpose to reduce such stabilization problems; [0013] disclosed stabilization method became more efficient; [0044] cut sheet is flat). Thus, the modification of Rasmussen ‘471 with Rasmussen ‘138 results in a flat product that is inherently free of the banana-shaped distortions, as claimed, as well as having the benefits of puncture resistance as suggested by Rasmussen ‘138, as stated above in the rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 14 of applicant’s remarks that unlike the cited prior art, claim 1 mandates a directional transition defined by a specific velocity (v) and a small angle (a) that must occur simultaneously while the polymer film is maintained at a temperature “lower than but close to its melting range”, the examiner notes that as stated in the rejection, the combination provides for the directional transition and since there is no cooling step disclosed in ‘471 to otherwise cool the film after changing direction, one skilled in the art would have expected the film to still be heated when making the transition.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights