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 § 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, 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.
Regarding claim 1, zipper tapes are derived from different configurations requiring engaging male and female portions having bases and protruding hooks. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art, cannot determine, with any degree of certainty or precision, the particular limits of the engaging male and female portions having bases and protruding hooks recited in the claim so as to ascertain the metes and bounds of the male and female portions such that “a force required for engaging the male engagement portion with the female engagement portion is in a range from 30 N/15mm to 100 N/15mm.”
Regarding claim 10, zipper tapes are derived from different configurations requiring male and female engagement portions. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art, cannot determine, with any degree of certainty or precision, the particular limits of the male and female engagement portions recited in the claim so as to ascertain the metes and bounds of the male and female engagement portions to accomplish the method step “making the force required for engaging the male engagement portion with the female engagement portion larger than a usually assumable force.”
Claims that have not been specifically mentioned are rejected since they depend from a claim that has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,791,710 to Nocek et l. (hereinafter Nocek).
Regarding claim 1, Nocek discloses a zipper tape comprising:
a first base;
a male engagement portion (rib element or male profile) protruding from the first base (Figs. 1-13);
a second base; and
a female engagement portion (groove element or female profile) protruding from the second base (Figs. 1-13), wherein
the male engagement portion comprises first and second hooks (shoulders) protruding outward (Figs. 1-13),
the female engagement portion comprises third and fourth hooks protruding inward (Figs. 1-13),
when the male engagement portion fits inside the female engagement portion, the first hook is engaged with the third hook and the second hook is engaged with the fourth hook (Figs. 1, 5, 7, 9, and 13).
Nocek further discloses a predetermined interlocking force is applied forcing the rib into the groove (column 5, lines 20-34; column 6, lines 2-9; column 6, lines 29-35), which meets the recitation “a force required for engaging the male engagement portion with the female engagement portion”. However, Nocek does not disclose the force required (i.e., predetermined interlocking force) is in a range from 30 N/15mm to 100 N/15mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different male engagement portion with the female engagement portion of the zipper tape in Nocek of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient to achieve a force required for engaging the male engagement portion with the female engagement portion in a range from 30 N/15mm to 100 N/15mm. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, Nocek discloses the first base and the second base of the zipper tape being bonded to a container body.
Regarding claim 9, the container body is in the form of a bag.
Regarding claim 10, Nocek discloses the male engagement portion with the female engagement portion of the zipper tape are retained against separation (column 5, lines 20-34), permanently interlocked (column 6, lines 2-9), and permanently closed (column 6, lines 29-35), which meets the recitation “method of preventing falsification of contents in the zipper-tape-attached container”. Moreover, making the different male engagement portion with the female engagement portion of the zipper tape in Nocek of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient to achieve a force required for engaging the male engagement portion with the female engagement portion in a range from 30 N/15mm to 100 N/15mm, as discussed above, meets the recitation “making the force required for engaging the male engagement portion with the female engagement portion larger than a usually assumable force.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 2-7 is the inclusion of specific orientations and dimensions of elements within the male and female engagement portions, which are not disclosed or fairly taught by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.” A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 714.02 and MPEP 2163.06. The “disclosure” includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JES F PASCUA whose telephone number is (571)272-4546. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JES F PASCUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734