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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US 2756922) in view of Prudden (US 1799701) and Desmond et al. (US 3924800, hereinafter ‘Desmond’).
Adams discloses a method for sealing a container in a tamper-resistant manner, comprising: forming two opposing slots in a container (col. 2, ll. 67-col. 3, ll. 10), wherein the container includes a closed lower portion, a middle portion adapted for storing contents, and a closeable open upper portion, and wherein the two opposing slots are formed in front and rear panels of the closeable upper portion of the container (see Fig. 1, 2; ); looping the strip through the two opposing slots in the closeable upper portion of the container after the contents have been stored in the middle portion of the container; and closing the upper portion of the bag in a tamper-resistant manner, wherein the upper portion of the bag cannot be reopened without removing the strip (col. 3, ll. 19-33).
Adams does not expressly disclose printing identifying indicia on an outer surface of the strip or depositing adhesive on opposing ends of an inner surface of the strip thus requiring damaging the strip to remove as claimed.
However, Prudden teaches sealing packaging through opposed slot via depositing adhesive on opposing ends of an inner surface of a strip of material similar to paper (ll. 71-85) and adhering the opposing ends of the inner surface of the strip to one another using adhesive; wherein removing the strip damages the strip, and wherein the damage to the strip provides evidence of container tampering (ll. 71-95).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the adhesive and strip of material as taught by Prudden to seal the packaging through the handles taught by Adams, in order to seal the packaging and prevent tampering without destroying the seal as taught by Prudden (ll. 71-95).
Further, because Adams and Prudden both teach attaching material strips through bag handles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the adhesive on inner sides of a material strip taught by Prudden for the twisted material strip taught by Adams to achieve the predictable result of attaching the strip to the bag handles and providing evidence of tampering/opening.
Additionally, Desmond teaches printing identifying indicia regarding the stored contents on an outer surface of an elongated single strip of paper or an elongated single strip of material similar to paper (col. 1, ll. 60-61) attached to a bag’s handle as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to print identifying indicia as taught by Desmond to the strip of paper through the handles taught by Adams as modified above, in order to identify the contents of the bag and proof of purchase as taught by Desmond.
Adams as modified above further results in a device wherein the strip could be a pre-printed receipt (intended use recitation).
Regarding claim 3, as the stored contents of the bag are not positively recited as part of the claims, further definition as to the particulars of the contents are not patentably defining.
Adams as modified above further results in a device wherein the container is a paper or plastic bag or similar item (Adams; col. 2, ll. 63); the adhesive is a rubber based adhesive (Prudden ll. 75-80); the adhesive is a self-sealing adhesive (Prudden ll. 75-80).
Regarding claim 8, Adams as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the specific identifying indicia as now claimed.
It has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of information does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability.
The Examiner asserts that the Adams as modified above assembly is the same structure claimed by applicant and the sole difference is in the content of printed material. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter (e.g., indicia or instructions on the assembly to inform the contents or recipient) and the substrate (e.g., assembly), which is required for patentability.
Accordingly, there being no functional relationship of the printed material to the substrate, as noted above, there is no reason to give patentable weight to the content of the printed matter, which by itself is non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made provide the Adams as modified above assembly with indicia or instructions to inform the contents or recipient.
Regarding claim 13, when viewed in combination as set forth above, Adams as modified above results in a method including the step of subsequent to looping the strip through the two opposing slots, closing the upper portion of the bag in a tamper-resistant manner by adhering the opposing ends of the inner surface of the strip to one another at a predetermined distance above the upper portion of the bag, wherein the upper portion of the bag cannot be reopened without removing the strip, wherein removing the strip damages the strip, and wherein the damage to the strip provides evidence of container tampering (when viewed in combination as set forth above).
Claim(s) 7, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US 2756922) in view of Prudden (US 1799701) and Desmond et al. (US 3924800, hereinafter ‘Desmond’) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 13 above, and further in view of Barbaro (US 4790670).
Adams as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the upper portion adhesive as claimed.
However, Barbaro teaches the upper portion of a carrying bag being provided with adhesive (42) for sealing the closeable upper portion of the container to the middle portion of the container (see Figs. 6, 7).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the adhesive and closure flap taught by Barbaro to the upper portion of the bag taught by Adams as modified above, in order to enclose and protect the contents of the bag as taught by Barbaro (col. 9, ll. 1-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Adams does not teach a method of sealing a container in a tamper-resistant manner. This argument has been considered, however is not persuasive in light of Adams tie-wire 24 in-and-of-itself providing tamper-resistance by preventing the bag from being opened/closed quickly without an added step of removing the fastener.
That Adams is intended to be opened/closed multiple times does not impact the fact that the combination described above meets the scope of the claims.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
Applicant’s argument that Adams would be inoperable for its intended purpose in the proposed combination has been considered, however is not persuasive. Having a receipt that must be initially torn to open the bag has absolutely no effect on the bag being able to be repeatedly use after the initial opening. This is standard practice in art of flexible packaging. The use of the proposed combined device would not damage the bag are argued by applicant, only the initial sealing receipt.
For the reasons stated above, as well as those set forth in the rejections above, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
January 28, 2026