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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on February 3, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 6 are amended; claim 5 is cancelled; resulting in claims 1-4 and 6-11 pending for examination.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation in claim 6 reciting “wherein the fold line is defined by a line printed on the outer surface of the strip” is considered new matter that is not supported by the instant specification in combination with the new limitation in lines 9-10 of claim 1 reciting “the fold line being defined by a plurality of perforations spaced between the first and second sides of the strip”.
In looking to page 3, lines 10-13 of the as-filed specification, the fold line is said to be defined as a plurality of axially spaced perforations extending between a first side and a second side of the strip; alternatively, the fold line may be defined by a line printed on the outer surface of the strip. In each instance where the form of the fold line is disclosed, the fold line is said to be defined by either a plurality of perforations or a printed line (see also p. 4, Ln 11-13; p. 5, Ln 8-10; p. 8, Ln 15-19). Given that these features are exclusively disclosed in the alternative, the specification does not provide adequate support for an embodiment in which the fold line is defined by both a plurality of perforations and a printed line, as required by claim 6.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinecke (DE 102017006746, machine translation previously provided) in view of Ito (US 2011/0180616, previously cited), Shany et al. (WO 2015/151100, previously cited), and Sievel (US 2008/0223512, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-8, Heinecke teaches a fastening device (1) comprising an adhesive film in the form of a strip material and a protective carrier film (16; substrate) to which the adhesive film is removably attached, wherein a contour (strip) is cut out of the adhesive film without also cutting the carrier film ([0018], [0046], [0052]-[0053], Figs. 1-6, 8). The carrier film and the cutout of the adhesive film attached thereto together correspond to the claimed removable sealing strip. As shown in annotated Fig. 1 below, the cutout of the adhesive film has first and second ends with a first portion extending from the first (rightmost) end of the contour, a second portion extending from the first portion, and a third portion extending between the second portion and the second (leftmost) end of the contour, wherein a fold line is present at the intersection of the first and second portions, and a seal line extends between the first and second sides of the contour along an intersection of the second and third portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
951
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the limitation reciting “the strip when removed from the substrate is foldable along the fold line such that the inner surface of the first portion of strip is configured to be bound to the inner surface of the second portion of the strip such that the first portion and the second portion define a tab”, it is noted that this limitation is considered functional language relating to an intended use of the first and second portions of the strip. In the case where the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function, the prior art satisfies the claimed functional limitation.
Heinecke teaches that a method of assembling the fastening device (1) involves folding a flap (4) in the third portion to detach the flap from the carrier film, exposing the adhesive layer on the back side (inner surface) of the adhesive film ([0053], Fig. 2). The first and second portions are subsequently folded over to adhere the second portion to the adhesive flap on the third portion ([0054], Fig. 3). In a final step, the first portion is folded over to join the adhesive inner surfaces of the first and second portions of the adhesive film ([0057], Figs. 5-6). Therefore, as shown in Fig. 6, the adhesive film taught by Heinecke is shown to be foldable along a fold line (14) at the intersection of the first and second portions of the adhesive film such that the inner surfaces of the first and second portions are capable of being bound to one another to define a tab. As shown in Figs. 5-7 and annotated Fig. 1 above, the first end of the contour is alignable with the seal line such that the first and second portions have equal lengths. The prior art contour is therefore capable of performing in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
With respect to the preamble limitation reciting “for sealing a lid removably secured to a top portion of a container”, it is noted that this limitation is interpreted as functional language relating to an intended use of the claimed removable sealing strip. As set forth in MPEP 2111.03(II), to satisfy an intended use limitation, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. In the instant case, the adhesive film taught by Heinecke has an adhesive provided on a back side thereof, such that the cutout of the adhesive film (strip) is capable of sealing a lid secured to a top portion of a container upon removal of the adhesive film from the carrier film (16) to expose the adhesive. The prior art label is capable of performing in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed intended use limitation.
Although Heinecke teaches that the adhesive film may be printed with design elements and/or advertising, and that at least one marking (e.g., printed, cut, or punched) may be provided to indicate a folding point to let a user know where the folding should take place and/or to make it easier for a user to fold the device in the correct place ([0021], [0037], [0041], Fig. 8), the reference does not expressly teach that the fold line is defined by a plurality of perforations spaced between the first and second sides of the strip or by a line printed on the outer surface of the strip as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of solutions for indicating the presence of fold lines, Ito teaches a shipping label (1) comprising a label sheet (2; strip) on the front side, with an adhesive layer (3) formed on the back side of the label sheet which is covered by a removable liner sheet (4) ([0028], Figs. 1A-1C). The shipping label (1) is divided into two parts, with a shipping label (5) occupying one part and an advertising label (6) occupying another part [0027]. Ito teaches that, in use, the advertising label is folded along a folding line (6a) so that a barcode (8a) can be folded to the back of the label ([0036], Figs. 2A-2E). Ito further teaches that the folding line (6a) indicating the folding position may be printed on the label sheet, or that an easy-to-fold part in the form of a cut line or a perforation may be formed through the label sheet so that the advertising label is easy to fold [0037]. As shown in Figs. 2B-2C, the folding line (6a) extends between first and second sides of the label.
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 fastening device of Heinecke by forming the fold line as a plurality of perforations spaced between first and seconds sides or as a printed line on the outer surface of the strip extending between first and second sides, as suggested by Ito, in order to provide a visual indication of where the device is to be folded and/or to make the device easier to fold along the fold line.
Heinecke in view of Ito differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach that the markings comprise first and second indicia printed on the outer surface of the first and second portions, each of the first and second indicia including first and second marks spaced between the first and second sides of the contour and having points intersecting the fold line to optically direct a user to the fold line, wherein the first and second marks of the second indicia are axially aligned with the first and second marks of the first indicia.
However, in the analogous art of solutions for indicating the presence of fold lines, Shany et al. teaches a sleeve for the formation of a container, for example, a potted plant holder blank, which may be constructed of a sheet of a suitable material that is foldable [0053]. In order to form the container, the blank (10) may be folded along fold lines, including sleeve formation fold lines (26a-26d), end panel fold lines (27), end formation fold lines (28), and corner formation fold lines (32) ([0059], Fig. 1A). Similar to Ito, Shany et al. teaches that the fold lines may be pre-creased (e.g., scored, grooved, or otherwise prepared to facilitate folding along the fold line), and further teaches that one or more of the fold lines may be visibly marked, e.g., with a printed solid, dashed, or dotted line, or with an arrow or other indication, to indicate where or in which direction the blank is to be folded ([0045], [0060]).
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 fastening device of Heinecke in view of Ito by including first and second printed indicia, e.g., in the form of arrow heads, on the outer surface of the first and second portions of the adhesive film, as suggested by Shany et al., in order to provide a prominent visual indication of where the device is to be folded, consistent with the teachings of Heinecke.
Although Shany et al. does not expressly teach the specific claimed configuration in which the first and second indicia each include first and second marks which are axially aligned with one another and which include points that intersect the fold line, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any number of printed markings in any configuration suitable to provide a visual indication of the location of the fold line. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the printed markings taught by Shany et al. to the contour taught by Heinecke in a configuration in which corresponding pairs of first and second markings are axially aligned on either side of the score line and have points intersecting the fold line in order to provide a clear and unambiguous indication of where the first and second portions are to be folded around the fold line. The selection of a particular shape, number, and/or arrangement of printed indicia elements on either side of the fold line is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(I). Moreover, it is well settled that duplication and/or rearrangement of parts holds no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)-(C).
With respect to the limitation reciting “the registration mark is provided at a location…to facilitate the orientation of the substrate within a printer to properly align the first and second indicia with respect to the fold line”, this limitation is considered to be a functional limitation related to an intended use of the location at which the registration mark is provided on the outer surface of the substrate. The claimed functional limitation is interpreted to be satisfied by a registration mark that is provided at any location capable of facilitating the orientation of the substrate within a printer as claimed. It is noted, however, that the claim does not specifically define a relative structural arrangement between the location at which the registration mark is provided and the location of the first and second indicia or the fold line.
Heinecke further differs from the claimed invention in that reference does not expressly teach that the outer surface of the protective carrier film (16; substrate) includes a registration mark provided thereon, where the registration mark is provided at a location on the outer surface of the substrate to facilitate the orientation of the substrate within a printer to properly align the first and second indicia with respect to the fold line.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive-backed labels, Sievel teaches a printing system (20) including a label supply (22) which is adapted to feed a continuous label stock (24) to a printer (26), wherein the printer includes one or more sensors (32), e.g., optical sensors, that are utilized to locate the leading edge of the label stock and/or registration markings located along the edge of the label stock that can provide indications of positioning of the label stock for both printing and cutting ([0015], [0019], Fig. 1). Registration markings (126, 128, 130) may be printed on the release liner (56; substrate) on the opposite side (outer surface) from where the release liner contacts the adhesive ([0019], Figs. 3-4). By sensing a registration mark on the label stock and knowing the fixed distance between the sensor and downstream device, e.g., cutter, the label stock can be accurately positioned such that a desired region is aligned with the cutter blade ([0020], [0022]). In the same way, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that by knowing the fixed distance between the registration mark and a desired print region and between the sensor and a downstream print head, the label stock can be accurately positioned such that a desired print region is aligned with the print head.
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 label taught by fastening device of Heinecke in view of Ito and Shany et al. by providing a registration marking on the outer surface of the carrier film at a location which indicates a position of the label to a sensor used for printing indicia thereon, as taught by Sievel, in order to ensure that the indicia is printed in the correct location on the label. The registration markings taught by Sievel are capable of performing in the manner claimed (i.e., orienting the substrate within a printer to properly align the first and second indicia with respect to the fold line), thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Heinecke in view of Ito, Shany et al., and Sievel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Figs. 3-5 of Heinecke, an adhesive (illustrated by areas marked with a dot pattern) is disposed on the inner surface of the first and second portions of the adhesive film ([0051], [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Heinecke in view of Ito, Shany et al., and Sievel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 6 of Heinecke, an adhesive (illustrated by areas marked with a dot pattern) is disposed on the inner surface of the third portion of the adhesive film ([0051], [0053]).
With respect to the limitation reciting “configured to attach to and interconnect the lid to the top portion of the container such that adhesive attachment of the adhesive to the lid [and] to the top portion of the container substantially inhibits removal of the lid from the top portion of the container”, it is noted that this limitation is considered functional language relating to an intended use of the adhesive on the inner surface of the third portion of the strip. As noted above with respect to claim 1, the preamble limitations directed to the lid and the top portion of a container are functional limitations relating to an intended use of the stealing strip. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, upon removal of the adhesive film from the carrier film (16) taught by Heinecke, the adhesive disposed on the inner surface of the third portion is capable of attaching to and interconnecting a lid and a top portion of a container to inhibit removal of the lid from the container as claimed. The prior art label is capable of performing in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed intended use limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Heinecke in view of Ito, Shany et al., and Sievel teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. It is noted that the limitation reciting “wherein the tab is configured to facilitate removal of the third portion of the strip from the lid and the top portion of the container” is considered functional language relating to an intended use of the tab.
As noted above with respect to claims 1 and 3, the preamble limitations directed to the lid and the top portion of a container are functional limitations relating to an intended use of the stealing strip. In the case where the adhesive on the back side of the third portion of the adhesive film is used to attach to and interconnect a lid and a top portion of a container, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the tab formed by folding over and adhering first and second portions would be capable of facilitating removal of the third portion from the lid and top portion of the container. The prior art label is capable of performing in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed intended use limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Heinecke in view of Ito, Shany et al., and Sievel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly teach that the outer surface of the third portion of the adhesive film has third indicia as claimed. As noted above, Heinecke does further teach that the adhesive film may be printed with design elements and/or advertising, and that at least one marking (e.g., printed, cut, or punched) may be provided to indicate the fold points in order to make it easier for a user to fold the fastening device in the correct place ([0037], [0041]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastening device of Heinecke in view of Ito, Shany et al., and Sievel by including third indicia in the form of printed markings on the third portion of the adhesive film, as suggested by Heinecke, in order to provide a visual indication of the location of the fold points to make it easier for a user to identify the lines along which the portions of the device are to be folded.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinecke (DE 102017006746, machine translation previously provided) in view of Ito (US 2011/0180616, previously cited), Shany et al. (WO 2015/151100, previously cited), and Sievel (US 2008/0223512, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bockario (US 5,127,676, previously cited).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Heinecke in view of Ito, Shany et al., and Sievel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Heinecke teaches that the adhesive is provided with the protective carrier film for transport and/or storage, wherein the adhesive film of the fastening device can be easily peeled off from the protective film at the time of use ([0030], [0040], Figs. 2-3), the reference does not expressly teach that the fastening device comprises a non-binding layer of material as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive-backed articles, Bockario teaches an adhesive label (10) comprising a base sheet (12), a cover sheet (14), and a leaflet (16) disposed between the base sheet and the cover sheet (col 2, Ln 45-50; Figs. 1-4). Bockario teaches that the label is initially provided with a silicone-coated release liner peelably adhered to the underside of the base sheet, wherein when the label is to be applied to a container, the release liner is removed from the base sheet to expose a coating of pressure sensitive adhesive on the underside of the base sheet (col 2, Ln 50-58). The silicone coating provided on the release liner therefore corresponds to the claimed non-binding layer of silicone material which facilitates the selective removal of the label from the release liner (substrate).
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 fastening device of Heinecke in view of Ito, Shany et al., and Sievel by including a non-binding layer of silicone release material on the surface of the protective carrier film facing the adhesive surface of the adhesive film, as suggested by Bockario, in order to ensure that the adhesive film can be easily peeled and removed from the protective carrier film at the desired time of use.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the previous rejections based upon Kaufman in view of Shany et al. and Ambartsoumian and based upon Heinecke in view of Twardosz and Sievel are withdrawn, and a new set of rejections based upon Heinecke in view of Ito, Shany et al., and Sievel is presented in the office action above to address the new combination of limitations further specifying the structure of the fold line and the first and second indicia. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous combinations of references are therefore moot, but will be addressed insofar as they apply to the new grounds of rejection.
With respect to Shany et al., the Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the remarks that there is no suggestion in Shany et al. to provide first and second indicia each including first and second marks printed on the outer surface of the respective first and second portions of the strip, being spaced between the first and second sides of the strip and having points intersecting the fold line to optically direct a user to the fold line.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above and acknowledged by the Applicant, Shany et al. teaches that one or more fold lines may be visibly marked, e.g., with a printed solid, dashed, or dotted line, or with an arrow or other indication, to indicate where or in which direction the blank is to be folded [0060]. The teachings of Shany et al. therefore expressly suggest using various types of markings, including arrows, to provide a visual indication of the location of a fold line. The specific configuration of the first and second markings in the first and second portions being axially arranged and having points that intersect the fold line is an obvious matter of design choice. So long as the markings are capable of performing the function of visually indicating the presence of the fold line, consistent with the teachings of Shany et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the markings can have any desired pattern and/or configuration. Therefore, the claimed configuration in which a pair of first and second marks are provided in an axially aligned arrangement on each side of the fold line and having points intersecting the fold line does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Minor et al. (US 2008/0296886) illustrates embodiments of labels having fold lines, where the outer surface of the labels are provided with printed indicia in the form of one or more arrows which intersect the fold line to indicate where the label is to be folded (Figs. 1-6).
Skinner et al. (US 2016/0298942) teaches a conformable mounting board having fold lines indicated by one or more of printing, scoring, creasing, perforating, and pre-folding the foldable portions [0008]. Skinner et al. therefore provides evidence of the art-recognized equivalence of printing and perforating for the purpose of indicating the presence of fold lines.
Tokawa (JP 2012-061015, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches origami paper sheets having fold lines (2) with markings (4) in the form of a symbol (e.g., a trapezoid, an arrow, etc.) displayed near each fold line to indicate the orientation the paper should be set when performing the folding process, where the vertex (4b) of each symbol may intersect the fold line ([0015]-[0016], [0019], Figs. 1-2).
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785