Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/380,809

Pull-Tab Bandage and Packaging

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 20, 2021
Examiner
ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Best Bandage LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
689 granted / 1137 resolved
-9.4% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1137 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/07/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 1-6, 8-10, 21-26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sessions (6,043,406) in view of Grossman (US 2004/0004014). PNG media_image1.png 169 560 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim 1 Sessions discloses a pull-tab bandage (10) comprising an adhesive strip (defined by portion 22 of film 14) that includes an absorbent pad (30); a non-stick backing (18) that adheres to the adhesive strip and covers the absorbent pad. Sessions discloses strip (portion 22 of film 14) being an adhesive strip by the fact that the strip comprises adhesive on surface (28) attaching pad (30) and non-stick backing (18) to the adhesive surface (see column 4 lines 31-47). Sessions further discloses the non-stick backing removable from the adhesive strip for application of the pad and the adhesive strip (see figures 4 and 5); and a pull-tab (defined by combination of end 24 from film 14 and tab 32) as an extension of the adhesive strip that extends beyond a packaging that encloses and seals around the pull-tab bandage, the pull-tab forming packaging gaps where the pull-tab extends beyond the packaging, and the packaging gaps being sealed with a packaging adhesive to form a cavity around the pull-tab bandage (see figure above). End (24) and tab (32) disclosed by Sessions are considered a pull tab by the fact the that both structures are attached to each other (see figures 1-6). Sessions further discloses the adhesive strip is sterile (see column 2 lines 3-7). Sessions does not explicitly disclose the absorbent pad is sterile. However, Grossman discloses sterile pads are well-known and nominal to be provided in package bandages (see [0002]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent pad of Sessions to be sterile as taught by Grossman to prevent a possible infection in the wound of the user. After Sessions is modified by Grossman, wherein Sessions discloses the adhesive strip being sterile while Grossman discloses the sterile pad, then the cavity between the adhesive strip and the non-stick backing will be sterile. Claim 2 Sessions further discloses the pull-tab is perforated along a terminal break (24a) to separate from the adhesive strip (see column 5 lines 42-50 and figure 6). Claim 3 Sessions further discloses the adhesive strip has perforations (24a) to demark the pull-tab that extends beyond the packaging that encloses and seals around the pull-tab bandage (see column 5 lines 42-50, figures 2 and 6). Claim 4 Sessions further discloses a perforation (24a) to demark the pull-tab as the extension of the adhesive strip, the perforation allowing separation of the pull-tab from the adhesive strip after the application of the sterile pad and the adhesive strip (see figures 2-6). Claim 5 Sessions does not disclose the perforation in the form of an arc. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the perforation in the form of an arc, as required, since it is a matter of obvious design choice the shape of the perforation. Please note that nowhere in any of paragraphs [0005], [0009], [0013], [0017] and [0026], applicant discloses any criticality for the arc shape of the perforation. Claim 6 Sessions and Grossman discloses the packaging gaps are sealed by the packaging adhesive applied in a quantity sufficient to seal the packaging gaps and form the sterile cavity around the pull-tab bandage. Sessions and Grossman discloses a sterile cavity, including the packaging gaps, surrounding the sterile pad. Claim 8 Sessions further discloses the non-stick backing is a one-piece backing that extends a full length and width of the adhesive strip inside of the sterile cavity formed by the packaging around the pull-tab bandage (see column 3 lines 44-48). Claim 9 Sessions does not disclose the non-stick backing comprising two-piece backing, as required. However, Grossman, embodiment of figure 6B and 6C, discloses a release liner (74) including a blocking member (114) being separate/two pieces one from the other, and overlapping each other. Grossman discloses the blocking member is used to equalize exterior thickness of the package in desired areas, which is placed in selected locations or continuously along a perimeter of the package (see [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sessions and Grossman including the package with a two-piece backing as disclosed for constant the exterior thickness of the package. Claim 10 Sessions further discloses an attached portion of the non-stick backing (defined by portion of the non-stick backing that meets middle portion 22 from film 14 by the end of the pull-tab 32) is attached to an inside of the packaging around the pull-tab bandage, the attached portion configured to peel the non-stick backing from the adhesive strip as the pull-tab is pulled to open the packaging. The non-stick backing (18) disclosed by Sessions is configured to peel from the adhesive strip by the fact that the non-stick backing comprising silicon release coating on surface (20) for releasing the non-stick backing from the adhesive strip (see column 3 lines 57-65). Claim 21 Sessions discloses a pull-tab bandage (10) comprising an adhesive strip (defined by portion 22 of film 14) that includes an absorbent pad (30); a non-stick backing (18) that removably adheres to the adhesive strip and covers the absorbent pad. Sessions discloses strip (portion 22 of film 14) being an adhesive strip by the fact that the strip comprises adhesive on surface (28) attaching pad (30) and non-stick backing (18) to the adhesive surface (see column 4 lines 31-47). Sessions further discloses the non-stick backing removable from the adhesive strip for application of the pad and the adhesive strip (see figures 4 and 5); and a pull-tab (defined by combination of end 24 from film 14 and tab 32) as an extension of the adhesive strip that extends beyond a packaging that encloses and seals around the pull-tab bandage to form a cavity (defined by area where absorbent pad is disposed) around the pull-tab bandage, wherein after removal of the non-stick backing from the adhesive strip, and after the application of the sterile pad and the adhesive strip, the pull-tab is separable from the adhesive strip (see figures 1-6). End (24) and tab (32) disclosed by Sessions are considered a pull tab by the fact the that both structures are attached to each other (see figures 1-6). Sessions further discloses the adhesive strip is sterile (see column 2 lines 3-7). Sessions does not explicitly disclose the absorbent pad is sterile. However, Grossman discloses sterile pads are well-known and nominal to be provided in package bandages (see [0002]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent pad of Sessions to be sterile as taught by Grossman to prevent a possible infection in the wound of the user. After Sessions is modified by Grossman, wherein Sessions discloses the adhesive strip being sterile while Grossman discloses the sterile pad, then the cavity between the adhesive strip and the non-stick backing will be sterile. Claim 22 Sessions further discloses the pull-tab is perforated along a terminal break (24a) to separate from the adhesive strip (see column 5 lines 42-50 and figure 6). Claim 23 Sessions further discloses the adhesive strip has perforations (24a) to demark the pull-tab that extends beyond the packaging that encloses and seals around the pull-tab bandage (see column 5 lines 42-50, figures 2 and 6). Claim 24 Sessions further discloses a perforation (24a) to demark the pull-tab as the extension of the adhesive strip, the perforation allowing separation of the pull-tab from the adhesive strip after the application of the sterile pad and the adhesive strip (see figures 2-6). Claim 25 Sessions does not disclose the perforation in the form of an arc. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the perforation in the form of an arc, as required, since it is a matter of obvious design choice the shape of the perforation. Please note that nowhere in any of paragraphs [0005], [0009], [0013], [0017] and [0026], applicant discloses any criticality for the arc shape of the perforation. Claim 26 Sessions further discloses the pull-tab forming packaging gaps where the pull-tab extends beyond the packaging, and the packaging gaps being sealed with a packaging adhesive applied in a quantity sufficient to seal the packaging gaps and form the sterile cavity around the pull-tab bandage. Sessions and Grossman discloses a sterile cavity, including the packaging gaps, surrounding the sterile pad. Claim 28 Sessions further discloses the non-stick backing is a one-piece backing that extends a full length and width of the adhesive strip inside of the sterile cavity formed by the packaging around the pull-tab bandage (see column 3 lines 44-48). Claim 29 Sessions does not disclose the non-stick backing comprising two-piece backing, as required. However, Grossman, embodiment of figure 6B and 6C, discloses a release liner (74) including a blocking member (114) being separate/two pieces one from the other, and overlapping each other. Grossman discloses the blocking member is used to equalize exterior thickness of the package in desired areas, which is placed in selected locations or continuously along a perimeter of the package (see [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sessions and Grossman including the package with a two-piece backing as disclosed for constant the exterior thickness of the package. Claim 30 Sessions further discloses an attached portion of the non-stick backing (defined by portion of the non-stick backing that meets middle portion 22 from film 14 by the end of the pull-tab 32) is attached to an inside of the packaging around the pull-tab bandage, the attached portion configured to peel the non-stick backing from the adhesive strip as the pull-tab is pulled to open the packaging. The non-stick backing (18) disclosed by Sessions is configured to peel from the adhesive strip by the fact that the non-stick backing comprising silicon release coating on surface (20) for releasing the non-stick backing from the adhesive strip (see column 3 lines 57-65). Claims 7 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sessions (6,043,406) and Grossman (US 2004/0004014) as applied to claim 1 or 21 respectively above, and further in view of Smith (5,460,620). Sessions discloses the packaging gaps sealed forming the cavity around the pull-tab bandage. After Sessions is modified having the pad to sterile, then the interior of the package would be a sterile cavity. Sessions discloses the non-stick backing comprises a silicon release coating on a release side (20) (see column 3 lines 57-65) but adhesively attached to the adhesive strip. Regarding the limitation of the adhesive heat-pressed used seal the package, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e the packaging, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. adhesive heat-pressed. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Smith discloses a package (10) comprising sheets (12 and 14) forming the package, the sheets are sealed by heat seal, pressure seal, bonding or various adhesive materials (see column 8 lines 16-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive strip of the package sealed to the non-stick backing by adhesive heat-pressed as required since heat-pressed is a known method of sealing a package. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm. 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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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. RAFAEL A. ORTIZ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3736 /RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 20, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 13, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 30, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599690
MEDICAL OR DENTAL CASSETTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600525
STRUCTURE FOR LOCKING AND RELEASING SHEET-LIKE OBJECT AND PACKAGING STORAGE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595094
ERGONOMIC HANDLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590478
LID OPENING/CLOSING STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589937
DETERGENT PRESENTATION PACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+36.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1137 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month