DETAILED ACTION
Vacate Previous Office Action
The previous office action filed 11/03/2025 is vacated
The period for reply of 3 Months set in said Office Action is restarted to begin with the mailing date of this letter.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/30/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 5 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. Claim 5 states "wherein the edge portion of the opaque film extends along the first edge". This exact relationship is not supported by the as-filed specification or drawings. The drawings fail to clearly show this feature. In fact, from figure 1, it appears that the sticker is not along the first edge.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theodore (US 2822118 A) in view of Shirai (JP 2021041965 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. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging with tear strips, Shirai taught of a tear strip that included a label (3’) to enables the user to have a graspable /knob portion (31). 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 Shirai in order to give the user a graspable portion. (Examiner Note: Shirais opaque film would be implementable on 40 of Theodore).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
THEODORE FIGURE
PNG
media_image2.png
496
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
SHIRAI FIGURE
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the opaque film is configured to have the same color or pattern as the third side. The opaque film (3’ of Shirai incorporated on item 40 of Theodore) is the same pattern as Theodore (35 of Theodore). Both have a plain pattern without indicia. Also note that the film of Shirai is “configured to” have the same plain pattern as the Theodore.
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Shirai further teaches wherein the opaque film is disposed over the free end via an adhesive. (This is taught by Shirai portion 30’, 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. Shirai further teaches wherein an edge portion of the opaque film lacks the adhesive. (This is taught by Shirai portion 31’, 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. Shirai further teaches wherein the edge portion of the opaque film extends along the first edge. (This is taught by Shirai portion 30’, refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theodore (US 2822118 A) in view of Kamiya (JP 2021008298 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. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging with tear strips, Kamiya taught of a tear strip that included a label (26a) to indicate the action “pull down” to the user. 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 Kamiya in order to communicate the required user action.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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).
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortimore (US 20100078467 A1) in view of Kamiya (JP 2021008298 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. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging with tear strips, Kamiya taught of a tear strip that included a label (26a) to indicate the action “pull down” to the user. 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 Morimore to include an opaque sticker at the free end of the tear strip as taught by Kamiya in order to communicate the required user action.
PNG
media_image3.png
474
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Kamiya further teaches wherein the opaque film is a label. (label is not further defined, therefore, the label taught by Kamiya teaches the claimed limiation)
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 Kamiya (JP 2021008298 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 (21) that connects the first side and the second side along a first edge; a fourth side (22) 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. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging with tear strips, Kamiya taught of a tear strip that included a label (26a) to indicate the action “pull down” to the user. 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 Kamiya in order to communicate the required user action.
PNG
media_image4.png
498
354
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
528
328
media_image5.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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 1/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an updated Shirai reference (older art).
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues away from the Kamiya reference by stating that Kamiya's "label is expressly used to indicate the opening operation order of the package. By contrast the present invention uses the opaque film to conceal the free end of the tear strip". However, this functionality of the present invention is not claimed where the Kamiya reference is utilized. The claims do not teach away from Kamiya. Presently, Kamiya's sticker does benefit the other references by adding the teaching of a sticker depicting opening instructions.
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
Conclusion
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