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 Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 7/20/2026, wherein claims 1 and 5 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 10-20 were withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theodore (US 2822118 A) in view of Segota (GB 2295807 A).
With respect to claim 1, Theodore discloses a child resistant package, comprising: a first side (17); a second side (15) disposed opposite the first side; a third side (18) that connects the first side and the second side along a first edge; a fourth side (16) disposed opposite the third side, the fourth side connecting the first side and the second side along a second edge; a tear strip (area between 33 and 34) disposed along the first side, the third side, and the fourth side, the tear strip having a free end disposed on the third side (18).
Theodore failed to disclose an opaque film disposed on the third side over the free end, wherein the opaque film blocks the free end of the tear strip from view. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging with tear strips, Segota taught of a tear strip that included a label (21) and an adhesive free end (24) to help the user to initiate opening (page 9 lines 4-12). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tear strip of Theodore to include an opaque sticker at the free end of the tear strip as taught by Segota in order to give the user a graspable portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Segota further teaches wherein the opaque film is disposed over the free end via an adhesive. (This is taught by Segota 21, refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Segota further teaches wherein an edge portion of the opaque film lacks the adhesive. (This is taught by Shirai portion 24 on item 21, refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 4, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Theodore and Segota further teaches wherein the edge portion of the opaque film extends between the first side and the second side along the third side. (Refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale. Placement of Segotas label would be on the free end of the tear strip so it would inherently be on the third side and therefore extend between the first and second side)
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Theodore further discloses wherein a distance between the first side (17) and the second side (15) is less than a distance between the third side (18) and the fourth side (16).
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Segota further teaches wherein the opaque film is a label (Segota page 5 lines 19-20).
9. (Original) The child resistant package of claim 1, wherein pulling the tear strip across the first side, the third side, and the fourth side separates an end portion of the package, wherein the separated end portion is configured to rotate open along a living hinge disposed in the second side.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theodore (US 2822118 A) in view of Segota (GB 2295807 A) and Toshio (JP2005246000 A).
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, except for wherein the opaque film is configured to have the same color or pattern as the third side. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely products with stickers, Toshio taught of the background color of the sticker being the same color as the where it is to be pasted on as a desirable feature for Feng Shui (page 2, the last paragraph [0026]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the film of Segota and Theodore to be the same color as the pasted surface as taught by Toshio in order to allow for desirable Feng Shui.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortimore (US 20100078467 A1) in view of Segota (GB 2295807 A).
With respect to claim 1, Mortimore discloses a child resistant package, comprising: a first side (figure 2); a second side (24) disposed opposite the first side; a third side (18) that connects the first side and the second side along a first edge; a fourth side (figure 2) disposed opposite the third side, the fourth side connecting the first side and the second side along a second edge; a tear strip (70) disposed along the first side, the third side, and the fourth side, the tear strip having a free end disposed on the third side (18).
Mortimore failed to disclose an opaque film disposed on the third side over the free end, wherein the opaque film blocks the free end of the tear strip from view. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging with tear strips, Segota taught of a tear strip that included a label (21) and an adhesive free end (24) to help the user to initiate opening (page 9 lines 4-12). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tear strip of Mortimore to include an opaque sticker at the free end of the tear strip as taught by Segota in order to give the user a graspable portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
474
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Mortimore further discloses wherein pulling the tear strip across the first side, the third side, and the fourth side separates an end portion of the package, wherein the separated end portion is configured to rotate open along a living hinge (75) disposed in the second side. (figure 4)
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacher (US 5660325 A) in view of Segota (GB 2295807 A).
With respect to claim 1, Zacher discloses a child resistant package, comprising: a first side (24); a second side (23) disposed opposite the first side; a third side (22) that connects the first side and the second side along a first edge; a fourth side (21) disposed opposite the third side, the fourth side connecting the first side and the second side along a second edge; a tear strip (42) disposed along the first side, the third side, and the fourth side, the tear strip having a free end exposed on the third side (24).
Zacher failed to disclose an opaque film disposed on the third side over the free end, wherein the opaque film blocks the free end of the tear strip from view. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging with tear strips, Segota taught of a tear strip that included a label (21) and an adhesive free end (24) to help the user to initiate opening (page 9 lines 4-12). Presently, the tab (35) of Zacher is flush, adding the label of Segota aids in accessibility of the pull tab. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tear strip of Zacher to include an opaque sticker at the free end of the tear strip as taught by Segota in order to aid in grasping the graspable portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
498
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
528
328
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Zacher further discloses wherein the tear strip (42 reinforcing tape) is made from a different material than the first side, the second side, the third side, and the fourth side. (paperboard -abstract)
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-10891531-B1 OR US-5660325-A OR US-3727750-A OR JP-2021008298-A OR JP-2021041965-A OR JP-7458160-B2 OR WO-2011091339-A2 OR JP-2025015742-A OR EP-3822189-B1 OR CN-1135447-A OR GB-2295807-A OR JP-2023184614-A OR JP-2022140954-A OR CA-3134787-A1 OR HU-216606-B OR EP-0888976-A1 OR EP-0143511-A2 OR US-20240391641-A1 OR US-20230063287-A1 OR US-20100078467-A1 OR US-3065896-A OR US-2836343-A OR US-2822118-A
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights