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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 04/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breese (US-20060177641).
Regarding claim 1, Breese teaches:
A stretched film ([0003] – [0004] and [0010]) comprising, in the following order:
a layer (a1) comprising an ethylene-based polymer (A) having a melt flow rate (190°C, 2.16 kg load) of 0.01 to 10 g/10 minutes and a density of 942 kg/m3 or higher as a main component ([0014] – [0015] and [0022]);
a layer (b) comprising an ethylene-based polymer (B) having a melt flow rate (190°C, 2.16 kg load) of 0.01 to 10 g/10 minutes and a density of 913 kg/m3 or lower as a main component ([0011], [0015] and [0022]); and
a layer (a2) comprising an ethylene-based polymer (A) having a melt flow rate (190°C, 2.16 kg load) of 0.01 to 10 g/10 minutes and a density of 942 kg/m3 or higher as a main component ([0014] – [0015] and [0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Breese teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Breese further teaches:
not comprising a layer comprising a medium-density polyethylene having a density of 925 kg/m3 or higher and lower than 941 kg/m3 as a main component ([0022]), see the HDPE/LLDPE/HDPE embodiment.
Regarding claim 3, Breese teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Breese further teaches:
wherein the ethylene-based polymer (B) has a density of 911 kg/m3 or lower ([0011]).
Regarding claim 4, Breese teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Breese further teaches:
having a stretch ratio of 2.0 times or more ([0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Breese teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Breese further teaches:
having a thickness of 5 pm to 1 mm ([0010]).
Regarding claim 6, Breese teaches:
A laminate comprising a layer composed of the stretched film according to claim 1 ([0023]) and [0032] – [0033]), see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Breese teaches:
A package comprising a layer composed of the stretched film according to claim 1 ([0003], [0005] – [0006], and [0032]), see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Breese teaches:
A method for producing a stretched film, comprising:
a step of stretching a laminate film ([0003] – [0004], [0023], and [0026]) having, in the following order, a layer (a1) comprising an ethylene-based polymer (A) having a melt flow rate (190°C, 2.16 kg load) of 0.01 to 10 g/10 minutes and a density of 942 kg/m3 or higher as a main component ([0014] – [0015] and [0022]);
a layer (b) comprising an ethylene-based polymer (B) having a melt flow rate (190°C, 2.16 kg load) of 0.01 to 10 g/10 minutes and a density of 913 kg/m3 or lower as a main component ([0011], [0015] and [0022]); and
a layer (a2) comprising an ethylene-based polymer (A) having a melt flow rate (190°C, 2.16 kg load) of 0.01 to 10 g/10 minutes and a density of 942 kg/m3 or higher as a main component ([0014] – [0015] and [0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Breese teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends on. Breese further teaches:
wherein the ethylene-based polymer (B) has a density of 904 kg/m3 or lower ([0011]).
Regarding claim 10, Breese teaches the limitations of claim 9, which claim 10 depends on. Breese further teaches:
wherein the ethylene-based polymer (A) has a density of 954 kg/m3 or higher ([0014]).
Regarding claim 11, Breese teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 11 depends on. Breese further teaches:
wherein the ethylene-based polymer (A) has a density of 958 kg/m3 or higher ([0014]).
Regarding claim 12, Breese teaches the limitations of claim 9, which claim 12 depends on. Breese further teaches:
wherein the ethylene-based polymer (A) has a density of 958 kg/m3 or higher ([0014]).
Regarding claim 13, Breese teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 13 depends on. Breese further teaches:
wherein in a case where the layer (a1) or the layer (a2) contains a component other than the ethylene-based polymer (A), the content of the ethylene-based polymer (A) in the layer (a1) or the layer (a2) is 90 mass% or more. Breese is silent as to whether the a1 or a2 layers contain any components other than the ethylene-based polymer. However, Breese explicitly points out the components of the suitable LLDPE ([0011]) and MDPE ([0012]), and has a paragraph describing the characteristics of suitable HDPE ([0014]). Therefore if Breese wanted the HDPE, which layers a1 and a2 are made of, to contain other components other than ethylene-based polymer, Breese would have disclosed this information in paragraph ([0014]) while describing suitable HDPE. The fact that Breese describes suitable HDPE and does not mention any other components being a part of the HDPE implies that the suitable HDPE does not contain other components and therefore this claim limitation is inherent in Breese’s disclosure, and the claim is taught by Breese.
Regarding claim 14, Breese teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 14 depends on. Breese further teaches:
wherein in a case where the layer (b) contains a component other than the ethylene-based polymer (B), the content of the ethylene- based polymer (B) in the layer (b) is 90 mass% or more ([0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see applicant arguments/remarks on pages 5-8, that Breese (US-20060177641) does not properly teach the limitations of the independent claim because it does not teach using an LLDPE with a density of under 913 kg/m3 for layer b. Applicant argues that the example in Breese teaches using an LLDPE with a density of 915 kg/m3. While it is true that 915 is greater than 913, this is only one example of the stretched film that can be made by Breese. Breese explicitly states that a suitable LLDPE can include a suitable VLDPE which has a density within the range of 0.865 g/cm3 (kg/m3) to 0.910 g/cm3 (kg/m3) ([0011]). Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive because showing that a single example in the prior art does not fit the claim limitations when the prior art itself is much more general and includes ranges that do fit the prior art does not make the invention patentable over the prior art. The invention would have to overcome the reference as used in the rejection in its entirety and therefore the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is upheld.
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 Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights