DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 10-15 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-9, 16-19, 21 and 22 remain pending in the application.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 22 recite the limitation “wherein the first profile strip of the zipper assembly is applied to the first location on the first surface of the film material such that the first profile strip completely overlays the tab and hides the tab from view from the first surface of the film material”. However, claims 1 and 16, from which claims 21 and 22 depend, are directed toward the embodiment depicted in figure 4. The method of claim 1 requires “applying a first profile strip of a zipper assembly to a first location on a first surface of the film material; applying a second profile strip of the zipper assembly that differs from the first profile strip to a second location on the first surface of the film material; and forming a resealable enclosure…subsequent to applying the first profile strip to the first location, and subsequent to applying the second profile strip to the second location with the first profile stirp and the second profile strip aligned with each other upon folding the film material”. Claim 16 recites substantially similar claim language.
The method limitations and structure defined in claims 21 and 22, however, are exclusive to and directed toward the embodiments depicted in figures 1-3 and 6. As shown in figure 4 and as described in paragraphs 24-27, the first profile strip of the zipper assembly is neither described nor depicted as being applied to the first location on the first surface of the film material such that the first profile strip completely overlays the tab and hides the tab from view from the first surface of the film material.
Accordingly, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 22 recite the limitation “wherein the first profile strip of the zipper assembly is applied to the first location on the first surface of the film material such that the first profile strip completely overlays the tab and hides the tab from view from the first surface of the film material”. However, claims 1 and 16, from which claims 21 and 22 depend, are directed toward the embodiment depicted in figure 4. The method of claim 1 requires “applying a first profile strip of a zipper assembly to a first location on a first surface of the film material; applying a second profile strip of the zipper assembly that differs from the first profile strip to a second location on the first surface of the film material; and forming a resealable enclosure…subsequent to applying the first profile strip to the first location, and subsequent to applying the second profile strip to the second location with the first profile stirp and the second profile strip aligned with each other upon folding the film material”. Claim 16 recites substantially similar claim language.
The method limitations and structure defined in claims 21 and 22, however, are exclusive to and directed toward the embodiments depicted in figures 1-3 and 6. As shown in figure 4 and as described in paragraphs 24-27, the first profile strip of the zipper assembly is neither described nor depicted as being applied to the first location on the first surface of the film material such that the first profile strip completely overlays the tab and hides the tab from view from the first surface of the film material. The structure of the zipper assembly of the embodiment depicted in figure 2, which is configured to be applied such that the first profile strip completely overlays the tab and hides the tab from view from the first surface of the film material, has a completely different structure and associated method than the structure of the zipper assembly and associated method of the embodiment depicted in figure 4. It is therefore not clear how the method and structure defined in claims 21 and 22 can be achieved with the structure of the zipper assembly of the embodiment depicted in figure 4 and as defined in claims 1 and 16. Therefore, further examination of claims 21 and 22 cannot be conducted as the method and structure intended by the language of the claims, in combination with the method and structure of claims 1 and 16, cannot be ascertained.
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, 2, 4-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanemitsu et al. (US 5,400,568 A, hereinafter Kanemitsu) in view of Roesink et al. (US 2009/0152139 A1, hereinafter Roesink).
Regarding claim 1, Kanemitsu teaches a method comprising:
applying a first profile strip (13/24) of a zipper assembly to a first location on a first surface of the film material (FIG. 4);
applying a second profile strip (13/25) of the zipper assembly that differs from the first profile strip to a second location on the first surface of the film material (FIG. 4);
forming a resealable enclosure with the film material by folding the film material subsequent to applying the first profile strip to the first location and subsequent to applying the second profile strip to the second location with the first profile strip and the second profile strip aligned with each other upon folding the film material (FIG. 4), wherein the zipper assembly is disposed on the first surface of the film material and the first surface of the film material is an interior surface of the resealable enclosure (column 6 lines 16-36, column 9 line 23-column 12 line 56 and FIG. 1A-4, 7-14, 16-18).
Kanemitsu teaches cutting or punching to form an opening means including a notch (41, 64) and cut-out line (63) that allows the enclosure to be torn open with ease (FIG. 10, 16-18) but fails to teach cutting or punching through the unfolded film material to form an opening means including tab, wherein the tab is disposed on a first side of the resealable enclosure and wherein the resealable enclosure is formed by folding the film material subsequent to cutting or punching to form the tab.
Roesink teaches an analogous method and formed resealable enclosure, wherein first and second profile strips are applied to an unfolded film material (Fig. 11), wherein cutting or punching forms an opening means, wherein a resealable enclosure is formed by folding the unfolded film material subsequent to applying the first and second profile strips (Fig. 11-13), and wherein the zipper assembly is disposed on an interior surface of the formed resealable enclosure (Fig. 7-13) (paragraphs 27-41 and Fig. 2, 7-13). Roesink further teaches a well-known and alternative opening means formed by cutting or punching through the unfolded film material to form a tab (27), wherein the tab is formed by cutting or punching prior to applying the first and second profile strips and prior to folding the unfolded film material to form the resealable enclosure, and wherein the tab is formed so as to be disposed on a first side of the formed resealable enclosure (paragraphs 32, 37 and Fig. 2, 7-13).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the notch and cut-out line of Kanemitsu with the tab and method of forming disclosed by Roesink, wherein the tab is formed by cutting or punching through the unfolded film material prior to applying the first and second profile strips and prior to folding the unfolded film material to form the resealable enclosure and wherein the tab is formed so as to be disposed on a first side of the formed resealable enclosure, as the substitution of one known opening means and method of forming for an alternative known opening means and method of forming to achieve the equivalent result of providing a formed resealable enclosure with a means for initially opening the enclosure would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink teaches the method of claim 1 above, wherein the cutting or punching to form the tab includes puncturing completely through an entire thickness of the film material to separate the tab from the film material (Roesink: paragraph 32 and Fig. 2). Roesink defines the tab 27 as a “grip tab”. One skilled in the art would not expect the tab 27 of Roesink to be a grip tab, or grippable, if the tab did not include puncturing or cutting completely through an entire thickness of the film material to separate the tab from the film material. That is, if the grip tab 27 defined by Roesink did not include puncturing or cutting completely through an entire thickness of the film material to separate the tab from the film material, it would be attached to the remainder of the film material and would not be grippable.
Regarding claim 4, Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink teaches the method of claim 1 above, wherein the cutting or punching to form the tab includes separating the tab from the film material (Roesink: paragraph 32 and Fig. 2). Roesink defines the tab 27 as a “grip tab”. One skilled in the art would not expect the tab 27 of Roesink to be a grip tab, or grippable, if the tab did not include puncturing or cutting completely through an entire thickness of the film material to separate the tab from the film material. That is, if the grip tab 27 defined by Roesink did not include puncturing or cutting completely through an entire thickness of the film material to separate the tab from the film material, it would be attached to the remainder of the film material and would not be grippable.
Regarding claim 5, Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink teaches the method of claim 1 above, wherein the cutting or punching to form the tab does not cut through a second side of the resealable enclosure (Roesink: paragraphs 32, 37, 39 and Fig. 2, 7-13). It can be clearly seen in figures 11 and 12 (paragraphs 37, 39) that the cutting or punching to form the tab is formed through the unfolded film material on a portion of the unfolded film material that forms the first side (13) of the resealable enclosure. The other portion of the unfolded film material that forms the second side of the resealable enclosure does not including any cutting or punching and does not include a tab. It can also be seen in figures 7-10 that the cutting or punching to form the tab does not cut through the second side (14) of the resealable enclosure.
Regarding claim 6, Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink teaches the method of claim 1 above, wherein the tab is cut or punched so that the tab and a portion of the film material (26) connected with the tab are configured to be removed from the first side of the formed resealable enclosure by a consumer to access the zipper assembly (Roesink: paragraphs 12-16, 32 and Fig. 2, 7-10).
Regarding claim 7, Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink teaches the method of claim 6 above, wherein the tab that is cut or punched is configured to expose the zipper assembly responsive to the tab and the portion of the film material connected with the tab being removed from the first side of the formed resealable enclosure by the consumer (Roesink: paragraphs 12-16, 32 and Fig. 2, 7-10).
Regarding claim 8, Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink teaches the method of claim 1 above, wherein the cutting or punching to the form the tab includes puncturing a portion of the film material (Roesink: paragraph 32 and Fig. 2, 7-13).
Regarding claim 9, Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink teaches the method of claim 1 above, wherein the formed resealable enclosure is a flexible enclosure comprising the tab and the zipper assembly (Kanemitsu: column 6 lines 16-36, column 9 line 23-column 12 line 56 and FIG. 1A-4, 7-14, 16-18 and Roesink: paragraphs 27-41 and Fig. 2, 7-13).
Regarding claim 16, Kanemitsu teaches a method comprising:
applying a first profile strip (13/24) of a zipper assembly to a first location on an interior surface of an unfolded film material (FIG. 4);
applying a second profile strip (13/25) of the zipper assembly to a second location on the interior surface of the unfolded film material that is different from the first location (FIG. 4);
forming a resealable enclosure with the unfolded film material by folding the unfolded film material subsequent to applying the first profile strip and subsequent to applying the second profile strip of the zipper assembly, the film material folded such that the first profile strip and the second profile strip are aligned with each other after folding the film material (FIG. 4) (column 6 lines 16-36, column 9 line 23-column 12 line 56 and FIG. 1A-4, 7-14, 16-18).
Kanemitsu teaches cutting or punching to form an opening means including a notch (41, 64) and cut-out line (63) that allows the enclosure to be torn open with ease (FIG. 10, 16-18) but fails to teach cutting or punching completely through an entire thickness of the unfolded film material between an exterior surface and an interior surface of the unfolded material to form an opening means including tab, wherein the resealable enclosure is formed by folding the film material subsequent to cutting or punching to form the tab.
Roesink teaches an analogous method and formed resealable enclosure, wherein first and second profile strips are applied to an unfolded film material (Fig. 11), wherein cutting or punching forms an opening means, and wherein a resealable enclosure is formed by folding the unfolded film material subsequent to applying the first and second profile strips (Fig. 11-13) (paragraphs 27-41 and Fig. 2, 7-13). Roesink further teaches a well-known and alternative opening means formed by cutting or punching completely through an entire thickness of the unfolded film material between an exterior surface and an interior surface to form a tab (27), wherein the tab is formed by cutting or punching prior to applying the first and second profile strips and prior to folding the unfolded film material to form the resealable enclosure (paragraphs 32, 37 and Fig. 2, 7-13). Additionally, it is noted that Roesink defines the tab 27 as a “grip tab”. One skilled in the art would not expect the tab 27 of Roesink to be a grip tab, or grippable, if the tab did not include puncturing or cutting completely through an entire thickness of the film material to separate the tab from the film material. That is, if the grip tab 27 defined by Roesink did not include puncturing or cutting completely through an entire thickness of the film material to separate the tab from the film material, it would be attached to the remainder of the film material and would not be grippable.
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the notch and cut-out line of Kanemitsu with the tab and method of forming disclosed by Roesink, wherein the tab is formed by cutting or punching completely through an entire thickness of the unfolded film material between an exterior surface and an interior surface prior to applying the first and second profile strips and prior to folding the unfolded film material to form the resealable enclosure, as the substitution of one known opening means and method of forming for an alternative known opening means and method of forming to achieve the equivalent result of providing a formed resealable enclosure with a means for initially opening the enclosure would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink teaches the method of claim 16 above, wherein the cutting or punching the tab cuts or punches the tab through the film material in the first location that corresponds to a front panel of the resealable enclosure and does not cut or punch through the film material in the second location that corresponds to a rear panel of the resealable enclosure (Roesink: paragraphs 32, 37 and Fig. 2, 7-13). It can be clearly seen in figures 11 and 12 (paragraphs 37, 39) that the cutting or punching to form the tab is formed through the unfolded film material on a portion of the unfolded film material that forms the first side (13) of the resealable enclosure. The other portion of the unfolded film material that forms the second side of the resealable enclosure does not including any cutting or punching and does not include a tab. It can also be seen in figures 7-10 that the cutting or punching to form the tab does not cut through the second side (14) of the resealable enclosure.
Regarding claim 18, Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink teaches the method of claim 16 above, wherein the tab is cut or punched so that the tab and a portion of the film material (26) connected with the tab are configured to be removed from a front panel of the formed resealable enclosure by a consumer to access the zipper assembly (Roesink: paragraphs 12-16, 32 and Fig. 2, 7-10).
Regarding claim 19, Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink teaches the method of claim 18 above, wherein the tab that is cut or punched is configured to expose the zipper assembly responsive to the tab and the portion of the film material connected with the tab being removed by the consumer (Roesink: paragraphs 12-16, 32 and Fig. 2, 7-10).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanemitsu in view of Roesink, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moehlenbrock et al. (US 2015/0353238 A1, hereinafter Moehlenbrock).
Regarding claim 3, Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink teaches the method of claim 1 above, wherein the method further comprises cutting or punching at least two lines of weakness (25) connected with the tab (Roesink: paragraph 32 and Fig. 2, 7) but fails to specifically teach the at least two lines of weakness extending partially through a thickness of the unfolded film material.
Moehlenbrock teaches an analogous resealable enclosure having an interiorly applied zipper assembly, a tab (23) and a line of weakness (21) connected with the tab, wherein the tab and the line of weakness are configured to provide access to the zipper assembly. Moehlenbrock further teaches that providing the line of weakness by score lines that extend partially through a thickness of a material is desirable as it provides for controlled tearing while maintaining the integrity of the enclosure before it is initially opened (paragraphs 80, 133).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Kanemitsu as modified by Roesink by cutting or punching the at least two lines of weakness partially through a thickness of the unfolded film material, as taught by Moehlenbrock, in order to provide for controlled tearing while also maintaining the integrity of the enclosure before it is initially opened.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Roesink does not describe or suggest cutting or punching through an unfolded film material to form a tab and that Roesink provides very little detail on how the grip tab is formed and does not state whether the grip tab is formed by cutting or punching through one side or panel only, of by cutting or punching through both sides or both panels of the enclosure, is not persuasive.
It can be clearly seen in figures 11 and 12 (paragraphs 37, 39) that the cutting or punching to form the tab is formed through the unfolded film material on a portion of the unfolded film material that forms the first side (13) of the resealable enclosure. The other portion of the unfolded film material that forms the second side of the resealable enclosure does not including any cutting or punching and does not include a tab. It can also be seen in figures 7-10 that the cutting or punching to form the tab does not cut through the second side (14) of the resealable enclosure, only the first side (13) is cut or punched (25).
Additionally, by definition, a perforation is a hole or aperture passing through a material. The prior art of Rogers et al. (US 8,173,233 B2) and Khan (US 8,157,443 B2) also support that perforations extend through a material. Accordingly, the u-shaped perforation and grip tab disclosed by Roesink sufficiently meet the language of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Rogers et al. (US 8,173,233 B2) and Khan (US 8,157,443 B2).
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 NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734