DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-12, 14-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US2016/0122109), in view of Taylor et al (US2023/0312210).
10. Clark teaches a multi-compartmental peel/reseal package (Fig. 3) comprising: a substrate (Fig. 3 at 14) forming at least a portion (upper surface) of a package body (Fig. 3); a plurality of circumferential slits (Fig. 3 at 32) in the substrate, each circumferential slit defining an opening cover (Fig. 3 at 48) corresponding to an opening (openings through 32) in the package body; a label member (Fig. 3 at 12) is adhered to the substrate and is configured to cover the plurality of circumferential slits and seal the opening in the package body. A selectively applied adhesive (adhesive on member 12) on a surface of the label member. Clark DIFFERS in that it does not specifically disclose that
the selectively applied adhesive on the surface of the label member forms a pattern including a high tack area and a low tack area, the high tack area having a greater adhesive tack value than the low tack area; wherein the pattern includes a positioning of the high tack area that provides attachment of the label member to the substrate and seal each of the openings in the package body, and the pattern includes a positioning of the low tack area between adjacent openings defined by the plurality of circumferential slits that permits peeling and release of the label member from the substrate. Attention, however is directed to Taylor, which discloses that permanent adhesive is aligned with the removable portion and peelable adhesive is aligned with the marginal region of the packaging structure (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Clark, in view of the teachings of Taylor, by employing permanent adhesive around the openings and peelable adhesive around the perimeter of the openings, in order to better seal the openings and easily remove the label from the opening when needed.
11. The package of claim 10, wherein the adhesive is a pressure sensitive adhesive (Clark, paragraph 0086).
12. The package of claim 10, wherein the selectively applied adhesive includes a modified adhesive that converted a portion of the high tack area to a low tack area (this occurs when the reference is modified).
14. The package of claim 10, wherein the selectively applied adhesive includes adhesive applied to pre-selected areas of the label member forming the high tack area and the low tack area (this occurs when the reference is modified).
15. The package of claim 10, wherein the selectively applied adhesive includes selectively a first adhesive composition forming the high tack area and a second adhesive composition forming the low tack area (this occurs when the reference is modified).
17. The package of claim 10, wherein the circumferential slits are die cut openings in the substrate. Clark DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the openings are die cut. However, die cut openings are old and well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Clark by employing such, in order to have an alternative sturdy way that the opening are made.
18. The package of claim 10, wherein the label member lifts the opening covers upon disengagement of the label member from the substrate (this occurs when the reference is modified).
19. Clark teaches a multi-compartmental peel/reseal label member (Fig. 3 at 12) for packaging (Fig. 3) comprising: a label member (Fig. 3 at 12) configured to cover a plurality of circumferential slits (Fig. 3 at 32) and seal an opening (opening through member 32) in the package body when adhered to a substrate (Fig. 3 at 14); and a selectively applied adhesive (adhesive on member 12) on a surface of the label member. Clark DIFFERS in that it does not specifically disclose that the label member forms a pattern including a high tack area and a low tack area, the high tack area having a greater adhesive tack value than the low tack area; wherein the a pattern includes a positioning of the high tack area that allows attachment of the label member to the substrate and is capable of sealing each of the openings in the package body, and a positioning of the low tack area between adjacent openings defined by the plurality of circumferential slits that permits peeling and release of the label member from the substrate. Attention, however is directed to Taylor, which discloses that permanent adhesive is aligned with the removable portion and peelable adhesive is aligned with the marginal region of the packaging structure (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Clark, in view of the teachings of Taylor, by employing permanent adhesive around the openings and peelable adhesive around the perimeter of the openings, in order to better seal the openings and easily remove the label from the opening when needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 16 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Clark does not explicitly teach “the low tack area between adjacent openings defined by the plurality of circumferential slits that permits peeling and release of the label member from the substrate”, as required by amended claim 10 and similarity amended claim 19. Attention, however is directed to Taylor, which discloses that permanent adhesive is aligned with the removable portion and peelable adhesive is aligned with the marginal region of the packaging structure (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Clark by employing a high tack area (permanent adhesive area) around the opening slits in Clark and a peelable adhesive area (low tack area) around the opening perimeter in order to have a high tack area and a low tack area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights