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 .
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, 2, 5-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0022435 to Tanaka et al. (hereinafter Tanaka) and WIPO Document No. 2016/114303 to Namba et al. (hereinafter Namba).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a zipper tape (10) comprising:
a first base (13);
a second base (14)
a first engagement portion (16) and a second engagement portion (18) that respectively protrude from the first base and the second base, and are engageable with each other; and
a peeling portion (51, 52) provided on a surface of the second base near the first base, the surface being located at a portion where the second base extending beyond the first base at a second side opposite to a first side.
However, Tanaka does not disclose a tear strip disposed in parallel with the first base at the first side in a width direction of the first base; and a second base having a width larger than a width of an area including the first base and the tear strip.
Namba teaches that it is known in the art to provide a tear strip (5) that is disposed in parallel with a first base (21A) at a first side in a width direction of the first base; a second base (22A) having a width larger than a width of an area including the first base and the tear strip in an analogous zipper tape (Figs. 18 and 20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a tear strip that is disposed in parallel with the first base at a first side in a width direction of the first base; and the second base having a width larger than a width of an area including the first base and the tear strip in the Tanaka zipper tape, as in Namba, in order to permit a sealed container with the zipper tape to be opening without a separate tool.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses a resin composition (52) forming the peeling portion (51, 52) is different from a resin composition forming a surface of the first base opposite to the first engagement portion, and is different from a resin composition forming a surface of the second base on a side of the second engagement portion at the first side (paragraphs [0123]-[0125]).
Regarding claim 5, Namba discloses a thick portion (224) provided on a surface of the second base (22A), at a side near the first base (21A), the second base extending beyond the tear strip (5) at the first side (Fig. 20). Therefore, providing the second base having a width larger than a width of an area including the first base and the tear strip in the Tanaka zipper tape, as in Namba and discussed above, meets the recitation “a thick portion provided on a surface of the second base, at a side near the first base, the second base extending beyond the tear strip at the first side.”
Regarding claim 6, Namba separation of the cutting tape (5) from the female side belt-like base (22A) includes interfacial peeling at the boundary between the female side belt-like base (22A) and the cutting tape (5), cohesive peeling of the cutting tape (5), interlayer peeling of the cutting tape (5), etc., wherein the cutting tape (5) and the female belt-like base (22A) can be joined together by, for example, an adhesive or by integral molding such as co-extrusion molding (machine translation page 25, second paragraph). Therefore, providing a tear strip that is disposed in parallel with the first base at a first side in a width direction of the first base in the Tanaka zipper tape, as in Namba and discussed above, meets the recitation “wherein the tear strip includes a strip body and a peeling layer, the peeling layer being provided on a surface, of the strip body, on a side facing the second base.”
Regarding claim 7, both Tanaka and Namba disclose a container body that includes a film and a zipper tape. Therefore, providing a tear strip that is disposed in parallel with the first base at a first side in a width direction of the first base; and the second base having a width larger than a width of an area including the first base and the tear strip in the Tanaka container body with a zipper tape, as in the Namba container body with a zipper tape, meets the recitation “a container body that includes a film; and the zipper tape according to claim 1, the zipper tape being attached to the film, wherein a part of the second base extending beyond the tear strip at the first side, the tear strip, a surface of the first base opposite to the first engagement portion, and the peeling portion are each bonded to a first surface of the film.”
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka discloses a peel strength between the peeling portion and the first surface is less than 30 N/15mm (paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka discloses heat-seal portion (521) is bonded to a facing inner surface of the bag body (20) in an easily peelable manner by heated seal bar (60) is pressed onto the easy-peel layer (52) via the bag body (20), and a pressing projection (60A) shaped including a series of arches similarly to the heat-seal portion (521) is formed (paragraphs [0182], [0183], and [0194]), which meets the recitation “wherein a bonded portion between the peeling portion and the first surface has a wavy planar shape.”
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka and Namba disclose the claimed invention, as discussed above, except Tanaka does not disclose a cut having a tab shape formed in the first surface. Namba teaches that it is known in the art to form a cut (60) having a tab shape in the first surface (11A) of an analogous container (Fig. 16). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first surface with a cut having a tab shape in the modified container of Tanaka, as in Namba, in order to define a container opening start portion.
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka and Namba disclose the claimed invention, as discussed above. Namba especially discloses the cut (60) having the tab shape is formed in the first surface (11A), the second base (22A), and a second surface (11B) of the film, wherein the second surface is opposed to the first surface (Fig. 16). Namba further teaches that it is known in the art to form another cut (62) in the second surface (11B) and the second base (22A), wherein the other cut does not penetrate through the tear strip (Fig. 16). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide another cut formed in the second surface and the second base, wherein the other cut does not penetrate through the tear strip in the modified container of Tanaka, as in Nambe, in order to provide an easy opening structure adjacent to an opening direction of the container.
Regarding claim 13, the container with the zipper tape of Tanaka and Namba, as discussed above, meets the recitation “wherein the container body has a bag shape.”
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0022435 to Tanaka et al. (hereinafter Tanaka) and WIPO Document No. 2016/114303 to Namba et al. (hereinafter Namba) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0236026 to Nanba et al. (hereinafter Nanba).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka and Namba disclose the claimed invention, except Tanaka does not disclose a thick portion provided at an end portion of the first base at the second side. Nanba teaches that it is known in the art to provide a thick portion (325) at an end portion of a first base (321) at a second side in an analogous zipper tape. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a thick portion at an end portion of the first base at the second side in the Tanaka zipper tape, as in Nanba, in order to improve sealability and facilitate pinching when the zipper tape attached to a container.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka and Namba disclose the claimed invention, except Tanaka does not disclose a thick portion provided at an end portion of the first base at the first side. Nanba teaches that it is known in the art to provide a thick portion (325) at an end portion of a first base (321) at a first side in an analogous zipper tape. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a thick portion at an end portion of the first base at the first side in the Tanaka zipper tape, as in Nanba, in order to improve sealability and facilitate pinching when the zipper tape attached to a container.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0022435 to Tanaka et al. (hereinafter Tanaka) and Japanese Document No. 2019-51963 to Katada (hereinafter Katada).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a zipper tape (10) comprising:
a first base (13);
a second base (14)
a first engagement portion (16) and a second engagement portion (18) that respectively protrude from the first base and the second base, and are engageable with each other; and
a peeling portion (51, 52) provided on a surface of the second base near the first base, the surface being located at a portion where the second base extending beyond the first base at a second side opposite to a first side.
However, Tanaka does not disclose a tear strip disposed in parallel with the first base at the first side in a width direction of the first base; and a second base having a width larger than a width of an area including the first base and the tear strip.
Katada teaches that it is known in the art to provide a tear strip (420) that is disposed in parallel with a first base (441A) at a first side in a width direction of the first base; a second base (132) having a width larger than a width of an area including the first base and the tear strip in an analogous zipper tape (Fig. 20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a tear strip that is disposed in parallel with the first base at a first side in a width direction of the first base; and the second base having a width larger than a width of an area including the first base and the tear strip in the Tanaka zipper tape, as in Katada, in order to permit a sealed container with the zipper tape to be opening without a separate tool.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses a resin composition (52) forming the peeling portion (51, 52) is different from a resin composition forming a surface of the first base opposite to the first engagement portion, and is different from a resin composition forming a surface of the second base on a side of the second engagement portion at the first side (paragraphs [0123]-[0125]).
Regarding claim 7, both Tanaka and Katada disclose a container body that includes a film and a zipper tape. Therefore, providing a tear strip that is disposed in parallel with the first base at a first side in a width direction of the first base; and the second base having a width larger than a width of an area including the first base and the tear strip in the Tanaka container body with a zipper tape, as in the Katada container body with a zipper tape, meets the recitation “a container body that includes a film; and the zipper tape according to claim 1, the zipper tape being attached to the film, wherein a part of the second base extending beyond the tear strip at the first side, the tear strip, a surface of the first base opposite to the first engagement portion, and the peeling portion are each bonded to a first surface of the film.”
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka discloses a peel strength between the peeling portion and the first surface is less than 30 N/15mm (paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka discloses heat-seal portion (521) is bonded to a facing inner surface of the bag body (20) in an easily peelable manner by heated seal bar (60) is pressed onto the easy-peel layer (52) via the bag body (20), and a pressing projection (60A) shaped including a series of arches similarly to the heat-seal portion (521) is formed (paragraphs [0182], [0183], and [0194]), which meets the recitation “wherein a bonded portion between the peeling portion and the first surface has a wavy planar shape.”
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka and Katada disclose the claimed invention, as discussed above, except Tanaka does not disclose a cut having a tab shape formed in the first surface. Katada teaches that it is known in the art to form a cut (151) having a tab shape in the first surface (111) of an analogous container (Fig. 21). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first surface with a cut having a tab shape in the modified container of Tanaka, as in Katada, in order to define a container opening start portion.
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka and Katada disclose the claimed invention, as discussed above. Katada especially discloses the cut (151) having the tab shape is formed in the first surface (111), the second base (132), and does not penetrate through a second surface (112) of the film, wherein the second surface is opposed to the first surface (Fig. 12). Katada further discloses a bonded region (160) in which the first surface (111), the tear strip (420), the second base (132), and the second surface (112) are bonded to each other is formed, and the cut (151) having the tab shape is formed in a non-bonded region being at least partially surrounded by the bonded region. (Fig. 19). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a bonded region in which the first surface, the tear strip, the second base, and the second surface are bonded to each other is formed, and the cut having the tab shape is formed in a non-bonded region being at least partially surrounded by the bonded region in the modified container of Tanaka, as in Katada, in order to maintain a sealed property of the container.
Regarding claim 13, the container with the zipper tape of Tanaka and Katada, as discussed above, meets the recitation “wherein the container body has a bag shape.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the easy peel of Tanaka is not needed or desired when a container has a zipper tape configuration disclosed by Namba or Katada.
These arguments have been considered, however are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments mischaracterize the combinations set forth in the rejections above, the rejections do not purport to add the Tanaka peel portion to the Namba or Katada bag. Rather, the rejections propose the modification involving adding a tear strip to the Tanaka bag, as taught by Namba or Katada.
As such, applicant’s arguments are not germane to the rejections set forth above, and are not persuasive.
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 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 PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
July 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights