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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 15, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the strip body defines an integrated portion of at least one of the first and second zipper segments…the strip body defining a portion of the upper flange” in lines 9-12.
A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “wherein the strip body defines an integrated portion of at least one of the first and second zipper segments”, and the claim also recites “the strip body defining a portion of the upper flange” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the strip body still defines an integrated portion of at least one of the first and second zipper segments or whether the strip body only defines an integrated portion of the first zipper segment.
For the purpose of examination, the strip body will be considered to define an integrated portion of the first zipper segment.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the portion of the exterior edge of the pull tab” in line 5. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims.
For the purpose of examination, the pull tab will be considered to comprise an exterior edge.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected as being dependent from, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, claim 1 above.
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 1-4, 6, 8-10, 21-23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2013-147288 A) in view of Murofushi (JP 2018-177332 A).
Regarding claim 1, Goto discloses a flexible enclosure comprising:
a front sidewall (101a) and a back sidewall (102a) that define an interior cavity of the flexible enclosure;
a resealable assembly (2A) including first and second zipper segments (10B, 20C) that are coupled with the front and back sidewalls, respectively, and are mateable with each other to enclose product within the interior cavity, the first and second zipper segments being releasable from each other to provide access to the product, the front sidewall and the back sidewall sealed to each other (side seal portion 120; Fig. 2) with an upper flange of the first zipper segment therebetween (Figs. 2 and 6);
a tear strip having an elongated strip body (11b) that extends along the front sidewall (Fig. 6), the tear strip also including a pull tab (machine translation paragraph 61) that is accessible to a user along the front sidewall (Fig. 2), wherein the strip body (11b) defines an integrated portion of the first zipper segment (10B), wherein the upper flange of the first zipper segment extends along an interior face of the front side wall (Fig. 6), the strip body defining a portion of the upper flange (Fig. 6), wherein the pull tab included material from a portion of the upper flange (Fig. 2), the strip body breaking from the resealable assembly and tearing an access opening through the front sidewall when the pull tab is pulled away from the front sidewall by the user (Fig. 2); and
an easy peeling layer between the back sidewall (102a) and the strip body (11b) (Fig. 6) (machine translation and Fig. 2, 6).
However, it is unclear if the easy peeling layer is a peelable material. Murofushi teaches that it is known in the art to use peelable material as an easy peeling layer between a back sidewall (13) and a strip body (41) in an analogous enclosure (machine translation paragraphs 45-47). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use peelable material for the easy peeling layer between the back sidewall and the strip body in the Goto enclosure, as in Murofushi, in order to allow the strip body to separate from the back sidewall while the front and back sidewalls remain sealed to each other.
Additionally, Goto fails to teach the pull tab including stamped material from the portion of the upper flange. Murofushi also teaches that is known in the art to include stamped material (cutout portion 52) from unsealed portion (21; machine translation paragraph 54), and thus stamped material from strip body (41; Figs. 2-4), for the pull tab (51) in an analogous enclosure..
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include stamped material from the strip body in the enclosure of Goto (which would meet the recitation “wherein the pull tab includes stamped material from a portion of the upper flange”), as in Murofushi, in order facilitate grasping the strip body. Regarding the pull tab including stamped material, it has been held that method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Marosi, 710 F2.d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In this case, the structure defined by the cutout portion of Murofushi meets the stamped structure defined in the claims and specification of the present invention
Regarding claim 2, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the enclosure of claim 1 above, wherein the strip body breaks from the upper flange when the pull tab is pulled away from the front sidewall by the user (Goto: Fig. 2, 6).
Regarding claim 3, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the enclosure of claim 2 above, wherein the strip body is defined between frangible lines (12, 13) of the upper flange (Goto: Translation and Fig. 2, 6).
Regarding claim 4, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the enclosure of claim 1 above, the upper flange (10A) is sealed to the front sidewall (Figs. 6-8), wherein the strip body (11b) defines an integrated portion of the first zipper segment (10B), breaks from the resealable assembly and tears the access opening through the front sidewall when the pull tab is pulled away from the front sidewall, which meets the structure implied by the functional recitation “wherein the upper flange is sealed to the front sidewall and has a frayed edge exposed to the access opening.”
Regarding claim 6, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the enclosure of claim 1 above, wherein the pull tab includes stamped material from at least the front sidewall and a portion of the strip body (Goto: Fig. 2, 6, Murofushi: Translation, and see rejection of claim 1 above). Application of the stamped structure of Murofushi to Goto results in the pull tab including stamped material from at least the front sidewall and a portion of the strip body.
Regarding claim 8, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the enclosure of claim 1 above, wherein the flexible enclosure further comprises a sealed frame (120) extending along a perimeter of the flexible enclosure (Goto: Fig. 2), the sealed frame including the front sidewall and at least one other sidewall of the flexible enclosure sealed to one another (Goto: Fig. 2, 6), and the sealed frame including an exterior edge of the flexible enclosure (Goto: Fig. 2), but fails to teach the pull tab including a portion of the sealed frame, and an exterior edge of the pull tab either being entirely separated from a remainder of the sealed frame or frangibly connected to the front sidewall.
Murofushi teaches that it is known in the art provide a sealed frame extending along a perimeter of the flexible enclosure, the sealed frame including the front sidewall and one other sidewall of the flexible enclosure sealed to one another, the sealed frame including an exterior edge of the flexible enclosure, wherein the pull tab includes a portion of the sealed frame, and an exterior edge of the pull tab being entirely separated from a remainder of the sealed frame (Figs. 1, 2, and 6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Goto by configuring the pull tab to be included in a portion of the sealed frame, wherein an exterior edge of the pull tab is entirely separated from a remainder of the sealed frame, as taught by Murofushi, in order isolate the pull tab from the interior of the enclosure.
Regarding claim 9, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the enclosure of claim 1 above, wherein the front sidewall including a tab window (52) defined by an inner edge and the pull tab includes a distal edge, wherein the inner edge surrounds the pull tab including the distal edge (Murofushi: Translation and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the enclosure of claim 9 above, wherein the flexible enclosure further comprises a sealed frame (120) extending along a perimeter of the flexible enclosure (Goto: Fig. 2), the sealed frame including the front sidewall and at least one other sidewall of the flexible enclosure sealed to one another (Goto: Fig. 2, 6), but fails to teach the pull tab being formed from a portion of the sealed frame, the sealed frame being wider along a first section of the sealed frame that includes the tab window compared to a second section of the sealed frame that is opposite the first section.
Murofushi teaches that it is known in the art provide a sealed frame extending along a perimeter of the flexible enclosure, the sealed frame including the front sidewall and one other sidewall of the flexible enclosure sealed to one another, wherein the pull tab is formed from a portion of the sealed frame, the sealed frame being wider along a first section of the sealed frame that includes a tab window (52) compared to a second section of the sealed frame that is opposite the first section (Translation and Fig. 6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Goto by configuring the pull tab to be formed from a portion of the sealed frame, wherein the sealed frame is wider along a first section of the sealed frame that includes the tab window compared to a second section of the sealed frame that is opposite the first section, as taught by Murofushi, in order isolate the pull tab from the interior of the enclosure.
Regarding claim 21, Goto discloses a flexible enclosure comprising:
a front sidewall (101a) and a back sidewall (102a) that define an interior cavity of the flexible enclosure;
a resealable assembly (2A) including first and second zipper segments (10B, 20C) that are coupled with the front and back sidewalls, respectively, and are mateable with each other to enclose product within the interior cavity, the first and second zipper segments being releasable from each other to provide access to the product, the front sidewall and the back sidewall sealed to each other (side seal portion 120; Fig. 2) with an upper flange of the first zipper segment therebetween (Figs. 2 and 6);
a tear strip having an elongated strip body (11b) that extends along the front sidewall (Fig. 6), the tear strip also including a pull tab (machine translation paragraph 61) that is accessible to a user along the front sidewall (Fig. 2), wherein the strip body (11b) defines an integrated portion of the first zipper segment (10B), the strip body breaking from the resealable assembly and tearing an access opening through the front sidewall when the pull tab is pulled away from the front sidewall by the user (Fig. 2); and
an easy peeling layer between the back sidewall (102a) and the strip body (11b) (Fig. 6),
wherein the flexible enclosure includes a sealed frame (120) extending along a perimeter of the flexible enclosure (Fig. 2), the sealed frame including the front sidewall and at least one other sidewall of the flexible enclosure sealed to one another (Goto: Fig. 2, 6) (machine translation and Fig. 2, 6).
However, it is unclear if the easy peeling layer is a peelable material. Murofushi teaches that it is known in the art to use peelable material as an easy peeling layer between a back sidewall (13) and a strip body (41) in an analogous enclosure (machine translation paragraphs 45-47). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use peelable material for the easy peeling layer between the back sidewall and the strip body in the Goto enclosure, as in Murofushi, in order to allow the strip body to separate from the back sidewall while the front and back sidewalls remain sealed to each other.
Additionally, Goto fails to teach the front sidewall including a tab window defined by an inner edge and the pull tab including a distal edge, wherein the inner edge surrounds the pull tab including the distal edge, wherein the pull tab is formed from a portion of the sealed frame, and wherein the sealed frame is wider along a first section of the sealed frame that includes the tab window compared to a second section of the sealed frame that is opposite the first section.
Murofushi teaches that it is known in the analogous art to configure a front sidewall of a flexible enclosure with a tab window (52) defined by an inner edge and a pull tab (51) with a distal edge, wherein the inner edge surrounds the pull tab including the distal edge in order to facilitate grasping the pull tab (Translation and Fig. 6). Murofushi further teaches that it is known in the analogous art to provide a sealed frame extending along a perimeter of the flexible enclosure, the sealed frame including the front sidewall and one other sidewall of the flexible enclosure sealed to one another, wherein the pull tab is formed from a portion of the sealed frame, the sealed frame being wider along a first section of the sealed frame that includes the tab window (52) compared to a second section of the sealed frame that is opposite the first section (Translation and Fig. 6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Goto by configuring the front sidewall with a tab window defined by an inner edge and the pull tab with a distal edge, wherein the inner edge surrounds the pull tab including the distal edge, wherein the pull tab is formed from a portion of the sealed frame, and wherein the sealed frame is wider along a first section of the sealed frame that includes the tab window compared to a second section of the sealed frame that is opposite the first section, as taught by Murofushi, in order to facilitate grasping the strip body and in order isolate the pull tab from the interior of the enclosure.
Regarding claim 22, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the flexible enclosure of claim 21 above, wherein the tear strip includes a single protrusion formed along at least a portion of a length of the elongated strip body (Goto: Fig. 6, 11b-1 as a whole meets single protrusion).
Regarding claim 23, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the flexible enclosure of claim 21 above, wherein the tear strip includes multiple protrusions formed along at least a portion of a length of the elongated strip body (Goto: Fig. 6- each corner edge on 11b-1 meets multiple protrusions).
Regarding claim 25, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the flexible enclosure of claim 1 above, wherein the tear strip includes a single protrusion formed along at least a portion of a length of the elongated strip body (Goto: Fig. 6, 11b-1 as a whole meets single protrusion).
Regarding claim 26, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the flexible enclosure of claim 1 above, wherein the tear strip includes multiple protrusions formed along at least a portion of a length of the elongated strip body (Goto: Fig. 6- each corner edge on 11b-1 meets multiple protrusions).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Murofushi, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Todaka (WO 2021/149807 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the flexible enclosure of claim 21 above, wherein the tear strip is formed from a polyolefin such as polyethylene (Goto: Translation) but fails to teach the tear strip being formed from a cyclic olefin copolymer (COC) material.
Todaka teaches an analogous flexible enclosure having a resealable assembly and a tear strip made of a resin composition containing polyethylene and further teaches that examples of resin compositions other than polyethylene include cyclic olefin copolymers (Translation).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Goto by forming the tear strip from a cyclic olefin copolymer (COC) material, as taught by Todaka, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known alternative material to polyethylene and as 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 design choice.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Murofushi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Todaka (WO 2021/149807 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Goto as modified by Murofushi teaches the flexible enclosure of claim 1 above, wherein the tear strip is formed from a polyolefin such as polyethylene (Goto: Translation) but fails to teach the tear strip being formed from a cyclic olefin copolymer (COC) material.
Todaka teaches an analogous flexible enclosure having a resealable assembly and a tear strip made of a resin composition containing polyethylene and further teaches that examples of resin compositions other than polyethylene include cyclic olefin copolymers (Translation).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Goto by forming the tear strip from a cyclic olefin copolymer (COC) material, as taught by Todaka, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known alternative material to polyethylene and as 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 design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Murofushi fails to describe or suggest that any portion of the tab 51 includes an upper flange of a zipper segment, is not persuasive.
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). Murofushi was not intended to teach the tab including an upper flange of a zipper element as the argued limitation is already taught by Goto. Murofushi was merely intended to teach the structure of the pull tab having cutout opening 52.
Applicant’s argument that Murofushi fails to describe or illustrate a structure in which one of the left side seal portion or right side seal portion 15 is wider or smaller than the other, is not persuasive.
It can be clearly seen in figure 6(A) that the left side seal 14 includes a section that is wider than the right side seal. It is also noted that Goto does teach a sealed frame 120 as clearly shown in figure 2.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights