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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2 Feb. 2026. These drawings are acceptable
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections to the drawings and claims have been fully considered and are persuasive; the objections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9, 13-14, 17-18, 20-25, 28, 32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to 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.
Applicant contends, on pages 14-15, an angle in the specific range required by claim 7 is needed to properly operate the device because the precise angular orientation claimed is required to achieve reliable engagement while maintaining tamper-evident functionality. However, the specification describes any angle less than 90° is capable of performing the same function so it is not clear if the claimed angle is critical to the invention. Applicant does not explain why the ranged claimed is “not arbitrary” when the specification describes other angles for performing the same functions. At pages 7-8, the specification does not support this assertion and states the flaps can be structured to extend from the knot at an angle “less than 45°; less than or equal to 80°, 70°, 60°, 55°, 50°, 40°, 35°, 30°, 25°, 21-24°, 22.5-24.5°, and/or 20°; in the range 20-25°, 25-30°, 30-35°, 35-40°, 40-45°, 45- 50°, 50-55°, 55-60°, 60-70°, 70-80°, and/or 80-90°.”
Applicant argues Sumimoto does not explicitly disclose the claimed range and one of ordinary skill in the art could not have configured the flaps disclosed by Sumimoto to have an angle between 22.5-24.5°. Applicant further argues the precise angular orientation claimed is required to achieve reliable engagement while maintaining tamper-evident functionality. However, it is not clear why one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to select an angle to optimize engagement that is in the range of 22.5-24.5° or why the flaps of Sumimoto would not be capable of a tamper-evident function in this range.
Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the flexible flap(s) disclosed by Sumimoto are structured to extend from the knot at an angle less than 45° (Sumimoto Figs. 24-32 depict embodiments of one or more flaps that extend at an angle less than 45°). It would not require undue experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to select an angle in the range of 22.5-24.5° because there is a limited number of angles to try, and Applicant does not assert an angle in the range of 22.5-24.5° would produce unexpected results. One skilled in the art would be motivated to configure the flap so it is easy for the user to insert the flaps through the aperture and then properly engage the receiver to prevent pulling the knot out of the lock (taught by Sumimoto Figs. 6-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 18, 20-25, 28, and 32 are 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 18 requires “a recess configured to receive a rib of the at least one receiver,” but this feature is not disclosed in the specification. Claims 20-25, 28, and 32 depend from claim 18.
The specification describes a rib added to one or more receiver, and the rib is configured to contact the inside of a wall in order to limit how far the receiver can flex away from the insertion axis (pp. 5-6). However, the description does not include the rib being captured within a recess of the wall.
Moreover, the specification does not disclose a rib being configured to resist tilting, twisting, or bypass movement of the at least one receiver relative to the lock when the rib is received in the recess. At page 6, the specification states the receiver flexes and the rib will “touch the wall 12 when the knot passes;” but the specification does not mention the rib being captured within the recess of the wall or the rib being configured to resist tilting, twisting, or bypass movement of the receiver when the rib is received in the recess. The specification goes on to state “the ribs restrict the amount of flexing out” so that a receiver cannot flex enough to allow the know to pass back through. However, the description does not include the rib being received in a recess or being “captured within the recess” when the security seal is locked, as claimed in claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-7, 9, 13-14, 17-18, 20-25, 28, and 32 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the security seal comprises a single-piece body including features on a first mold side of a mold form and features on a second mold side of the mold form.” This limitation makes it unclear whether the mold form is a required element of the claim. The phrase “including features on a first mold side of a mold form” may be interpreted as a mold form being a required component of the security seal, or as the security seal being used to create a mold form with features on first and second mold sides. The disclosure suggests the claim is directed to a security seal made by a mold form with two mold sides, however the claim does not require the single-piece body is manufactured with a mold form and it is unclear what elements are required by the claim. If Applicant intends to recite the process by which the product is made, is should be noted that product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Claims 2-7, 9, 13-14, 17-18, 20-25, 28, and 32 are rejected as depending from an indefinite claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumimoto et al., US 4,240,183 A.
Claim 1: Sumimoto discloses a security seal, comprising:
a main body (3) having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 32);
a lock (fastener with socket 78) positioned on the main body (Fig. 32), wherein the lock comprises one or more receivers (80);
at least one knot (7), wherein each knot of the at least one knot is positioned on the main body distal to the lock (Fig. 32), wherein each knot is configured to interconnect with the lock such that the security seal is locked and the main body, lock, and knot form a closed loop (the seal is structured to form a closed loop when the knot is inserted into the lock), wherein each knot of the at least one knot comprises one or more flaps (8),
wherein when the knot interconnects with the lock such that the security seal is sealed, the knot engages with at least one receiver of the lock (col. 4 ln. 66-col. 5 ln. 17 and col. 8 ln. 53-58),
wherein the security seal comprises a single-piece body (abstract (the structure formed in “an integral structure” corresponds to a single-piece body)) including features on a first mold side of a mold form and features on a second mold side of the mold form (the security seal is formed as an integral structure by molding, so the single-piece body has features from first and second sides of a mold form).
PNG
media_image1.png
264
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Sumimoto discloses the security seal according to claim 1, wherein the one or more flaps extend radially outward from a base of the knot (Fig. 32, annotated above, illustrates the flaps 8 extending radially from the base of the knot 7; col. 4 ln. 42-46), each flap being configured to engage a corresponding receiver of the lock when the security seal is locked (col. 2 ln. 14-17 and col. 8 ln. 58-62; Fig. 32 depicts the flap is structured to engage a receiver and the receivers are structured with a receiver that corresponds to each flap), such that the one or more flaps are positioned axially farther from a longitudinal axis of the main body than the corresponding one or more receivers of the lock (Fig. 32 and col. 2 ln. 14-19; the flaps have to be positioned axially farther than the receiver in order to engage the receiver so it cannot be pulled out), such that any attempt to disengage the knot from the lock results in visible deformation of the one or more flaps (Sumimoto discloses the flaps made of polypropylene, and polypropylene is known to exhibit stress whitening, which shows visible evidence of deformation as in the instant disclosure (see Spec. p. 6 (“whitened portions in the material (stress-whitening) to show tampering when PP (polypropylene) is used as the material for the security seal”); Sumimoto also suggests the knot cannot be removed unless a flap is broken, which is also a visible deformation (col. 5 ln. 11-25)).
PNG
media_image2.png
264
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: Sumimoto discloses the security seal according to claim 2, wherein the security seal comprises a first volume, a second volume, and a third volume (Fig. 32, annotated above),
wherein the first volume incorporates a first axial section of the main body and a first section of the lock (Fig. 32 above),
wherein the second volume incorporates a second axial section of the main body and a second section of the lock (Fig. 32 above),
wherein the first volume and the second volume are axially distinct (illustrated in Fig. 32), integrally formed regions that together form a combined portion of the main body and the lock (illustrated in Fig. 32),
wherein the third volume incorporates the one or more flaps (Fig. 32 annotated above),
wherein the first volume, the second volume, and the third volume are formed of a single material (col. 4 ln. 4-8).
Claim 5: Sumimoto discloses the security seal according to claim 1, wherein either:
i) a first volume and a third volume are in direct contact, and a second volume is separate from the first volume and the third volume; or
ii) the first volume and a first portion of the third volume are in direct contact (Fig. 32 annotated below), and the second volume and a second portion of the third volume are in direct contact (Fig. 32 annotated below),
wherein the first portion of the third volume and the second portion of the third volume form the third volume (shown in Fig. 32 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
264
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: Sumimoto discloses the security seal according to claim 5,
wherein the first volume, second volume, and third volume are contiguous with each other and together form a single, monolithic structure (col. 1 ln. 11-12 (“integrally formed” corresponds to a single, monolithic structure)).
Claim 14: Sumimoto discloses the security seal according to claim 2,
wherein the lock comprises one or more slots between the one or more receivers (depicted in Fig. 32),
wherein once the one or more flaps pass the one or more receivers, the one or more flaps cover at least a portion of the one or more slots (the flap has to be structured to cover at least the length between receivers to prevent removal of the knot by aligning the flap and slot; Fig. 32 depicts the length of a slot is the same or greater than the length of a receiver, so when the flap covers the receiver, it will also cover at least a portion of one or more slots)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumimoto as applied to claim 2 above, alone.
Claim 7: Sumimoto discloses the security seal according to claim 2,
wherein the flaps extend in a direction toward the main body (Fig. 32) and at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the main body passing through a center of the knot (Fig. 32).
Sumimoto is silent to the angle being specifically in the range of 22.5-24.5°. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the flaps disclosed by Sumimoto to extend at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the main body in the range of 22.5-24.5° so as to be easily inserted into the lock and achieve an optimal engagement with the receiver to secure the seal, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using this specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harsley, US 2025/0026054 A1.
Claim 9: Sumimoto discloses the security seal according to claim 1, wherein the security seal is formed of a single material (abstract and claim 2). However, Sumimoto is silent to the single material being a biodegradable polymer, and wherein the biodegradable polymer is polylactic acid (PLA).
Harsley teaches a security seal formed of a single material ([0059]) that is a biodegradable polymer, wherein the biodegradable polymer is polylactic acid (PLA) ([0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the security seal taught by Sumimoto to be made from a biodegradable polymer, and wherein the biodegradable polymer is PLA, as taught by Harsley, in order reduce environmental impact of the single-use device.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg, US 3,466,077 A, in view of Sumimoto et al., US 4,240,183 A.
Claim 1: Moberg discloses a security seal, comprising:
a main body having a longitudinal axis (14, Fig. 1);
a lock (12) positioned on the main body (Fig. 1), wherein the lock comprises one or more receivers (34);
at least one knot (18), wherein each knot of the at least one knot is positioned on the main body distal to the lock (Fig. 1), wherein each knot is configured to interconnect with the lock such that the security seal is locked and the main body, lock, and knot form a closed loop (the seal is structured to form a closed loop when the knot is inserted into the lock; col. 3 ln. 11-15),
wherein when the knot interconnects with the lock such that the security seal is sealed, the knot engages with at least one receiver of the lock (col. 3 ln. 1-15),
wherein the security seal comprises a single-piece body (col. 2 ln. 4-7) including features on a first mold side of a mold form and features on a second mold side of the mold form (the security seal is molded in one piece, so the single-piece body will have features from first and second sides of a mold form).
However, Moberg is silent to each knot of the at least one knot comprising one or more flaps. Sumimoto teaches at least one knot comprising one or more flaps (col. 5 ln. 52-58; col. 5 ln. 68-col. 6 ln. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each knot of the at least one knot to comprise one or more flaps, as taught by Sumimoto, in order to increase strength against a force attempting to pull the knot out of the lock (Sumimoto col. 6 ln. 3-5).
Claim 2: Moberg, in view of Sumimoto, teaches the security seal according to claim 1, wherein the one or more flaps extend radially outward from a base of the knot (Sumimoto col. 5 ln. 52-53, depicted in Fig. 9), each flap being configured to engage a corresponding receiver of the lock when the security seal is locked (as modified, Sumimoto col. 5 ln. 59-63), such that the one or more flaps are positioned axially farther from a longitudinal axis of the main body than the corresponding one or more receivers of the lock (as modified, Sumimoto Fig. 12), such that any attempt to disengage the knot from the lock results in visible deformation of the one or more flaps (Sumimoto discloses the flaps made of polypropylene, and polypropylene is known to exhibit stress whitening, which shows visible evidence of deformation (see Spec. p. 6 (“whitened portions in the material (stress-whitening) to show tampering when PP (polypropylene) is used as the material for the security seal”); Sumimoto also suggests the knot cannot be removed unless a flap is broken, which is also a visible deformation (col. 5 ln. 11-25)).
Claim 3: Moberg, in view of Sumimoto, teaches the security seal according to claim 2,
wherein the knot interconnects with the lock such that the security seal is locked via a distal end of the main body being inserted into an insertion side of the lock (Moberg col. 2 ln. 62-col. 3 ln. 10) until the one or more flaps of the knot pass the one or more receivers of the lock (as modified, Sumimoto col. 4 ln. 65-col. 5 ln. 5),
wherein when the security seal is locked, the one or more receivers of the lock prevent the one or more flaps of the knot passing back by the one or more receiver to unlock the security seal (Sumimoto col. 5 ln. 11-21) without an indication that the security seal has been tampered with (Sumimoto col. 5 ln. 20-25).
Claim 13: Moberg, in view of Sumimoto, teaches the security seal according to claim 3,
wherein when the distal end of the main body is inserted into the lock, the distal end of the main body is inserted into an insertion side of the lock along an insertion axis of the lock until the security seal is locked (Moberg col. 2 ln. 62-col. 3 ln. 10), and
wherein the receivers flex away from the insertion axis of the lock as the knot is inserted into the lock, until the one or more flaps of the knot pass the corresponding one or more receivers of the lock (the receivers are structured to flex away when the knot is inserted and relax to be engaged with the knot and flaps for retaining the knot in the lock (Moberg col. 3 ln. 1-7; Sumimoto col. 5 ln. 53-56)).
Claim 17: Moberg, in view of Sumimoto, teaches the security seal according to claim 1,
wherein the lock comprises an outer wall (Moberg 12) surrounding at least a portion of the one or more receivers (Moberg Figs. 1-2),
wherein when the security seal is locked, the outer wall physically obstructs direct access to the one or more receivers, such that insertion of tools or implements to tamper with or unlock the seal is hindered (Moberg Abstract; Moberg col. 3 ln. 73-col. 4 ln. 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 20-25, 28, and 32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding current claim 18, Moberg discloses the security seal according to claim 1. However, Moberg is silent to, when the security seal is locked, at least one receiver having a rib that is captured within a recess of a wall, wherein the wall and the rib are configured such that relative motion of the rib away from the insertion axis is restricted by direct interference with opposed, inward-facing surfaces of the wall, wherein the rib is configured to resist tilting, twisting, or bypass movement of the at least one receiver relative to the lock when the rib is received in the recess. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the security seal disclosed by Moberg to further include a rib captured within a recess of the wall when the security seal is locked and wherein the rib is configured to resist tilting, twisting, or bypass movement of the at least one receiver relative to the lock when the rib is received in the recess without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
Sumimoto discloses the security seal of claim 1. However, Sumimoto is silent to the at least one receiver comprising a rib and a wall comprising a recess wherein, when the security seal is locked, the rib is captured within the recess, wherein the wall and the rib are configured such that relative motion of the rib away from the insertion axis is restricted by direct interference with opposed, inward-facing surfaces of the wall, wherein the rib is configured to resist tilting, twisting, or bypass movement of the at least one receiver relative to the lock when the rib is received in the recess. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the security seal to comprise a rib of the receiver configured to be captured within a recess of the wall such that relative motion of the rib away from the insertion axis is restricted by surfaces of the wall without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
Regarding claims 20-25, 28, and 32, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 18 from which the claims depend.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights