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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1 & B1 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species B1 and B2 represent different views of a single bag, as do Species B3 and B4. This is found persuasive, therefore Figures 2A, 2B, and 3 will all be considered Species B1 going forward.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6, 9, 14, and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
Claims 6 and 14 are directed to nonelected Species A2.
Claims 9 and 17 are directed to nonelected Species A3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-13, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chisato (JP 2021-024602).
Chisato discloses a container with a zipper tape, comprising: a container body comprising at least a first surface and a second surface opposed to each other (111A, 111B), a containing space being defined between the first surface and the second surface (see Figs. 1, 2A); and a zipper tape provided between the first surface and the second surface to define one side of the containing space (Fig. 2A), the zipper tape comprising a first base (121A) bonded to the first surface, a first engagement portion (122A, 123A) protruding from the first base, a second base (121B) bonded to the second surface, and a second engagement portion (122B, 123B) protruding from the second base and being engageable with the first engagement portion, wherein a low bonding strength layer (124), a bonding strength of which to the container body is lower than the bonding strength of a part other than the low bonding strength layer of the zipper tape, is provided on a part of the second base facing the second surface, a bonded region between the second base and the second surface comprises a first bonded region in which the second base is bonded to the second surface at the part other than the low bonding strength layer (Fig. 3), and a second bonded region in which the second base is bonded to the second surface only at the low bonding strength layer (Fig. 2A), and a minimum distance from a center of the containing space to the first bonded region is equal to or longer than a minimum distance from the center of the containing space to the second bonded region (Fig. 1).
Chisato further discloses the low bonding strength layer is provided, with respect to a width direction of the zipper tape, in an intermediate portion of the second base between a root of the second engagement portion and an end opposite the containing space (see Fig. 1), the first bonded region is provided opposite the containing space with respect to the low bonding strength layer (see Fig. 4), and the second bonded region is provided by a part of the bonded region protruding toward the containing space (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Chisato further discloses the second base comprises a part formed from a second resin composition (124) and facing the second surface, the second resin composition being different from a first resin composition forming the first base and a rest of the second base (para 0022), a bonded region between the second base and the second surface comprises a first bonded region in which the second base is bonded to the second surface at a part formed from the first resin composition, and a second bonded region in which the second base is bonded to the second surface only at the part formed from the second resin composition (see Figs. 1-3).
Chisato further discloses the second bonded region does not overlap with a longitudinal center of the zipper tape (see Fig. 2A); the second bonded region is formed in a first section in a longitudinal direction of the zipper tape, and a ratio Y/X of a distance Y from a longitudinal center of the zipper tape to a longitudinal middle part of the first section to a length X that is half an opening width of the container with the zipper tape is 0.15 or more (see Figs. 2A, 2B); at least a part of the second bonded region is located inside a circumference of a circle centered on the center of the containing space and touching the first bonded region (see Fig. 1); the second base is bonded to the second surface through the bonded region only at a side opposite the containing space with respect to a position of the second engagement portion in a width direction (see Fig. 3); the container body has a bag shape (see Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chisato (JP 2021-024602).
Chisato discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the specific peel strength of the second bonded region as claimed.
However, it is noted that in the flexible bag art, the ability to vary the particular peel strength of a section of a seal has long been within the level of ordinary skill in the art since prior to the invention by applicant as a means to enhance strength, set a specific release pressure for venting, etc.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use materials for the second bonded area with the specific peel strengths desired, since 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
March 4, 2026