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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The drawings objected for not showing “the outer layer is formed as elongated strips of the outer material that are spaced apart from each other along directions that are transverse to elongation directions of the strips of outer material, with the core exposed in location between the strips of the outer material” stands. Claim 1 requires one or more of the base OR the interlocking elements include a core. While figure 5 shows the strips of outer material on the core of the interlocking elements, the figures fail to show the strips of the outer material on the core of the base.
Regarding applicant’s arguments stating Plourde et al does not disclose wherein the outer layer is applied to the core as one of a co-extruded material that is extruded with the core or as a post-extrusion coating formed or coasted onto the core, Examiner notes that this limitation is considered product-by-process. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Examiner find the prior art reads on the claim as presented.
Regarding applicant’s arguments stating Plourde et al does not disclose the coating is applied or formed with the reputable material and instead teaches only teaches the paper is coated and the zipper is only covered with minor amounts of water-insoluble polymer, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The repulpable zipper 10 can include about 10% to about 90% by weight of a water-soluble polymer and about 10% to about 90% by weight of a repulpable material. Suitably, the repulpable zipper can include about 25% to about 75% by weight of a water-soluble polymer and about 25% to about 75% by weight of a repulpable material, or about 40% to about 60% by weight of a water-soluble polymer and about 40% to about 60% by weight of a repulpable material. The repulpable material can be a plant-based cellulose material as described below. The repulpable material can be either blended with the water-polymer or coated with the water-soluble polymer, or both. For example, paper can be coated so that the inside surfaces of the walls have a coating on them to help facilitate forming/sealing the package as well as providing better surfaces to attach the zipper (Plourde et al, page 6).
Plourde et al describes the repulpable zipper as a repulpable material. Then discloses the repulpable material can be coated with the water-soluble polymer. Applicant relies on the following example to discredit Plourde from teaching the zipper as being coated. Examiner is interpreted the repulpable material as the zipper as described on page 6 of Plourde et al and finds the prior art reads on the claim as presented.
Regarding applicant’s arguments stating Plourde et al fails to disclose the coating completely cover sand encloses the core, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant claims Plourde et al’s recitation of “A re-pulpable cellulose material can also be coated with minor amounts of a water-insoluble polymer such as an acrylic, provided that the overall zipper 10 is repulpable” to mean that the coating does not fully enclose the core. However, Examiner is interpreting “minor amount” to mean that the layer of water-insoluble polymer is thin yet still coats the entire zipper. Examiner finds the prior art reads on the claim as presented.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the outer layer is formed as elongated strips of the outer material that are spaced apart from each other along directions that are transverse to elongation directions of the strips of outer material, with the core exposed in location between the strips of the outer material as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the outer layer only covers portions of the interlocking elements that mate with each other while leaving the core material in a remainder of the interlocking elements exposes,” however, the disclosure fails to describe or show the portions of the interlocking elements that mate with each other and renders the claim indefinite. Figures 5 shows the strips of outer material on the core of the interlocking elements, but not the core of the base.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 21, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Plourde et al. WO 2021/183629.
Regarding Claim 1, Plourde et al. discloses a zipper assembly comprising:
an elongated base (14) configured to be coupled with a panel (102) of an enclosure; and
interlocking elements (18, 20) protruding from the base and configured to alternate between a mated state while coupled with other interlocking elements (26, 28) of another base (16) and an unmated state while separated from the other interlocking elements of the other base to alternately close and open the enclosure, wherein one or more of the base or the interlocking elements include a core (repulpable material) and at least a partial outer layer (coated), the core formed from a core material (“The repulpable zipper 10 can include about 10% to about 90% by weight of a water-soluble polymer and about 10% to about 90% by weight of a re-pulpable material”, page 6 lines 12-14) having a higher water solubility than an outer material (“the repulpable material can be…coated with minor amounts of a water-insoluble polymer”, page 6 lines 18-20) from which the outer layer is formed (Plourde et al, Fig 2),
wherein the outer layer is configured to be applied to the core as one of a co-extruded material extruded material extruded with the core or as a post-extrusion coating formed or coated onto the core.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitations noted in italics are considered product-by-process. As stated in the MPEP 2113: The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Regarding Claim 2, Plourde et al. discloses wherein the base (14) is elongated in a lateral direction and a transverse panel direction, the base extending from a first end to an opposite second end in the panel direction (Fig 1), the first end and the second end disposed at, beneath, or outside of the other interlocking elements of the other base while the interlocking elements of the base are mated with the other interlocking elements of the other base (annotated, Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Plourde et al. discloses wherein the core material is a resin that includes one or more of polyvinyl alcohol, hydroxyethyl cellulose, or another cellulose material (zipper material can be polyvinyl alcohol, hydroxyethylcellulose, water- soluble cellulosic ethers, methycellulose, sodium carboxymethylcellulose, page 6 line 26 - page 7 line 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Plourde et al. discloses wherein the outer material is formed from one or more of a polyolefin, a wax, an oil, an acrylic material, low density polyethylene, or another biodegradable material (Plourde et al , “A re-pulpable cellulose material can also be coated with minor amounts of a water-insoluble polymer such as an acrylic’, page 6 lines 18-20.)
Regarding Claim 6, Plourde et al. discloses wherein the outer material includes a salt, hydroxyethyl cellulose, or another cellulose (“A re-pulpable cellulose material can also be coated with minor amounts of a water-insoluble polymer such as an acrylic’, page 6 lines 18-20, Hydroxyethyl cellulose is a water-insoluble polymer).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Plourde et al. discloses wherein the base includes a facing side from which the interlocking elements protrude and an opposite panel side that is configured to be sealed to the panel of the enclosure, wherein the outer layer covers the interlocking elements and the facing side of the base but leaves the core on the panel side of the base exposed (annotated, Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Plourde et al. discloses wherein the base includes a facing side (annotated Fig 2) from which the interlocking elements protrude and an opposite panel side that is configured to be sealed to the panel of the enclosure, the outer layer is a first outer layer, and the outer material is a first outer material, and further comprising a second outer layer formed from a second outer material having lower water solubility than the core material (“the repulpable material can be…coated with minor amounts of a water-insoluble polymer”, page 6 lines 18-20), the first outer layer covering the interlocking elements and the facing side of the base, the second outer layer covering the panel side of the base (Plourde et al, Examiner is interpreting the coating of Plourde et al to cover the facing side and the panel side).
Regarding Claim 11, Plourde et al. discloses wherein the second outer material has greater adhesion to the panel of the enclosure than the first outer material (“The repulpable zipper 10 can be combined with the body (front and back walls) of the repulpable flexible package 100 using any suitable technique, to form the repulpable, re- closeable flexible package 100. Suitable techniques include heat sealing, lamination, adhesive bonding, page 10 lines 3-6).
Regarding Claim 12, Plourde et al. discloses wherein the outer layer completely covers and encloses the core (Plourde et al, “re-pulpable cellulose material can also be coated with minor amounts of a water-insoluble polymer, page 6 lines 18-20).
Regarding Claim 14, Plourde et al. discloses a zipper assembly comprising:
a base (14) configured to be coupled with a panel (102) of an enclosure; and
interlocking elements (18, 30) protruding from the base and configured to alternate between a mated state and an unmated state to alternately close and open the enclosure,
wherein one or more of the base or the interlocking elements are formed from a resin having one or more of a salt or cellulose dispersed throughout the resin (“The repulpable zipper 10 can include about 10% to about 90% by weight of a water-soluble polymer and about 10% to about 90% by weight of a re-pulpable material”, page 6 lines 12-14) (Plourde et al Fig 2),
wherein one or more of the base or the interlocking elements include a core and an outer layer that completely covers and encloses the core, the core formed from a core material having a higher water solubility than an outer material from which the outer layer is formed .
Regarding Claim 21, Plourde et al. discloses a method comprising:
forming a core material to create a zipper assembly having a base (14) configured to be coupled with a panel (102) of an enclosure and interlocking elements protruding from the base and configured to alternate between a mated state and an unmated state to alternately close and open the enclosure; and
forming an outer layer that selectively covers the core material of the zipper assembly, the core material having a higher water solubility than an outer material from which the outer layer is formed (“A re-pulpable cellulose material can also be coated with minor amounts of a water-insoluble polymer such as an acrylic’, page 6 lines 18-20)
wherein the outer layer is configured to be one of concurrently formed with the core as a co-extruded material extruded with the core or applied to the core as a post-extrusion coating following forming the base and the interlocking elements (“The repulpable zipper 10 can be combined with the body (front and back walls) of the repulpable flexible package 100 using any suitable technique, to form the repulpable, re- closeable flexible package 100. Suitable techniques include heat sealing, lamination, adhesive bonding, coextrusion and the like.”)
Examiner is intertreping Plourde et al to be extruded and then coated.
Regarding Claim 24, Plourde et al. discloses wherein the core material includes one or more of a resin that includes polyvinyl alcohol, a cellulose material, talc, or calcium carbonate filler (zipper material can be polyvinyl alcohol, hydroxyethylcellulose, water- soluble cellulosic ethers, methycellulose, sodium carboxymethylcellulose, page 6 line 26 - page 7 line 2).
Regarding Claim 26, Plourde et al. discloses wherein the outer material includes one or more of a polyolefin, a wax, an oil, an acrylic material, low density polyethylene, a salt, or cellulose material (“A re-pulpable cellulose material can also be coated with minor amounts of a water-insoluble polymer such as an acrylic’, page 6 lines 18-20).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plourde et al. WO 2021/183629 in view of Chen et al US 20030129331.
Regarding Claim 4, Plourde et al. discloses the invention except wherein the core material includes talc or calcium carbonate filler.
Chen et al. discloses wherein the core material includes talc or calcium carbonate filler (para 98).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the core material of Plourde et al. to include talc or calcium carbonate as taught by Chen since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plourde et al. WO 2021/183629 in view of Dais et al US 20200231341.
Regarding Claim 13, Plourde et al. discloses wherein the interlocking elements (18, 20) protrude from a facing side of the base with an opposite panel side of the base configured to be sealed to the panel of the enclosure.
Plourde et al does not disclose wherein the base includes sealant ribs protruding from the panel side.
Dais et al US 20200231341 discloses the base including sealant ribs (18) (Dais Fig 2B).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the zipper assembly of Plourde et al to include sealant ribs as taught by Dais and have them protrude from the panel side to “improve the grippability” (Dais para 37).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plourde et al. WO 2021/183629 in view of Shaffer et al. US 20060285773.
Regarding Claim 25, Plourde et al discloses the invention except wherein the outer material includes a biodegradable material.
Shaffer et al discloses a zipper constructed of biodegradable polymer blend (para 24).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the zipper of Plourde et al. to be made of a biodegradable material as taught by Shaffer to limit the container and zipper waste in landfills and as litter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ANNA SALEM RASHID whose telephone number is (703)756-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/ANNA S RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677