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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanzaki et al. (US 8,933,381 B2) in view of Miyake et al. (US 8,777,486 B2), Kawamoto et al. (JP 2018087028 A) as cited in the IDS filed 4/13/2022, Coker et al. (US 10,486,870 B2), and Holmen (US 2012/0308690 A1).
Citations to Kawamoto et al. are taken with respect to the EPO translation provided with the Office Action of 9/29/2025.
The limitation “steam release portion” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to be any structure which is capable of pass gas/vapor from one space to another (paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 1, Kanzaki et al. teaches a microwavable pouch having a bag shape (figures 1-2; column 6 lines 13-15) formed by thermally bonding laminated films at edges 2 (column 6 lines 22-24; column 9 lines 65-66), the pouch comprising steam releasing seal portion 6 configured to automatically release steam in a containing portion during heating, construed to be an “automatic steam venting mechanism” (column 7 lines 2-7), wherein the automatic steam venting mechanism 6 includes an outer seal portion 3 (steam venting seal portion) configured to initiate separation when an internal pressure of the containing portion increases during heating (figure 3; column 7 lines 8-12) and a steam release portion 10 surrounded by the steam venting seal portion 3 (figures 1-2 and 4-14; column 6 lines 27-30 and 36-39; column 7 lines 13-17). The outer seal portion 3 is construed to be the steam venting seal portion as the feature includes the same structure and function as disclosed by Applicant. The films can be made from known materials (column 5 lines 30-65).
Regarding “the slitting portion extending across the containing portion and passing through a virtual circle having a radius of a distance from a center point to an inner end of a peripheral seal portion on a short side of the microwavable pouch”, the limitation is interpreted in view of the disclosure to comprise the structure of figure 1, where the “virtual circle” is defined by item R and the slitting portion 130 extends between notches 135.
Kanzaki et al. teaches notches 7 located on each side of the pouch, where a perforated, scored, or similarly processed line is imparted onto the pouch and connects said notches, where said line extends through virtual circle R having a radius extending from center P to inner end of a short side peripheral seal portion A, the line serving to facilitate opening of the pouch and therefore construed to be a type of “slitting portion” (figure 1A-B; column 9 lines 37-40).
Kanzaki et al. does not teach the film having a structure of polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) / vapor-deposited polyethylene terephthalate (PET) / cast polypropylene (CPP), the initiated separation being with respect to bonded CPP layers of the laminated films, and the vapor-deposited PET layer being an intermediate layer.
Miyake et al. teaches a packaging bag having a steam venting function and capable of use in a microwave (column 1 lines 17-22), where the bag is formed by sealing laminates to each other (column 7 lines 23-31), where the laminates 2,3 (figure 2b) can have a structure of a base layer 21 made of polybutylene terephthalate (column 9 lines 41-43 and 48-49), an intermediate layer 22 (column 10 lines 11-14), and a sealant layer 2s,3s made of polypropylene (column 10 lines 5-6). The polypropylene used for the sealant layer can be non-oriented i.e., cast (column 18 lines 5-6).
Miyake et al. further teaches intermediate layer 22 can be included between layers 21 and 2s,3s when additional strength or barrier properties are needed, where the layer 22 can be made from polyester (column 10 lines 11-15), where known packaging polyesters include polyethylene terephthalate (column 9 line 48). The intermediate layer can also include vapor deposited compounds such as silica or aluminum oxide to increase drop strength, thrust strength, or gas barrier properties (column 10 lines 16-18). Thus, the reference suggests that the intermediate layer can be polyethylene terephthalate vapor deposited with desired compounds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the laminate structure of Kanzaki et al. to be PBT / vapor deposited PET / CPP since the reference does not particularly limit the materials and teaches that known packaging materials can be used to form a laminate having at least a sealant layer and a thermoplastic resin such as PET (column 5 lines 23-29, 34 and 59), including oriented or non-oriented (cast) films (column 6 line 66 to column 7 line 2), where Miyake et al. teaches the laminate structure provides heat resistance (column 9 lines 45-46), improved gas barrier property (column 9 lines 62-66), and improved drop/thrust strength (column 10 lines 11-12), since there is no evidence of record that the particular laminate structure and orientation of layer materials are critical or yield unexpected results, and therefore as a matter of manufacturing choice for desired barrier and strength properties of the package.
Regarding the limitation of the steam venting seal portion formed by directly bonding cast polypropylene layers of the laminated films, since Kanzaki et al. already teaches the steam venting seal portion 3 is formed by directly bonding the inner sealable layers of the laminate films (figure 3; column 6 lines 3-9), and since the combination applied above teaches the claimed laminate structure having CPP as the inner heat sealable layer, the combination reads on the claimed limitation.
Regarding the limitation of the steam venting seal portion being “configured to initiate separation of the bonded cast polypropylene layers of the laminated films…during heating”, since Kanzaki et al. already teaches the venting seal portion 3 is configured to separate the connection between the inner surfaces of each laminate as the pouch is heated (figure 3; column 6 lines 57-66; column 7 lines 8-17), and since the combination applied above teaches the claimed laminate structure, the combination reads on the claimed limitation.
Kanzaki et al. teaches a “slitting portion” between notches 7 as stated above, but does not teach the slitting portion is a cut that fully penetrates through a thickness direction of the intermediate layer and does not extend into the PBT outer layer, and the inner layer is partially slit in the thickness direction.
Kawamoto et al. teaches an easy-open bag that can be easily started to tear and a packaging thereof (figures 1-2; paragraph 1), the bag suitable for packaging food (paragraph 17) and comprising a laminate of films made from known microwavable materials (paragraphs 19-21), further comprising opposing groups 20 of cuts 25 connected by cutting line 3 (figure 5), the cutting line facilitating a transversal cut between said groups (paragraphs 45-46). The cutting line itself extends through the thickness of intermediate layer 32 in laminate 30, but does not extend into the outer layer 31 (figure 6). The intermediate layer can be made from materials like those of the outer layer 31 (paragraph 20), where the outer layer 31 can be made from PET (paragraph 19).
Coker et al. teaches a laminate for a container (abstract) comprising an upper (outer) layer, intermediate layer, and a bottom (inner) polypropylene layer that is adhered to the container, where die cuts are made through the bottom layer to facilitate separation at the respective locations (figures 2 and 4; column 4 lines 2-19) by directing force away from undesired areas e.g., adhesive bead between the inner layer and the container rim (column 5 lines 54-61).
Holmen teaches a microwavable bag (abstract) made from a laminate comprising inner sealant layer 340 (figure 5A), where the laminate includes differentially scored line 310, the score line having varying depth that extends through and between multiple layers (paragraph 23) to provide differences in extensibility or elasticity relative to others, as well as permit additional design flexibility for controlling the strain required for easier rupture (paragraphs 26-27). The score line is shown to partially slit the sealant layer 340 in the thickness direction.
The findings above suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that laminates used in microwavable packaging can include tear-facilitating cut lines that extend through the intermediate layer without extending through the outer layer, the depth of a cut line can extend between layers such that an inner sealant layer is partially slit in the thickness direction, and the cutting line can extend into the laminate from the inner sealant layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pouch of Kanzaki et al. to have the claimed slitting portion structure since the prior art acknowledges that perforations and/or cuts can extend through and between layers of a laminate with varying depths to facilitate tearing, to provide different packages having varying tear strengths based on varying applications and intended users (e.g., child, adult, elderly), since the evidence of record does not indicate that the claimed cut depth and structure are critical or yield unexpected results, and therefore to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results or to apply a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 I.(A) and (D).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanzaki et al. in view of Miyake et al., Kawamoto et al., Holmen, and Maseiker et al. (US 2012/0288660 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kanzaki et al. teaches a microwavable pouch as recited for claim 1. The combinations with Miyake and Kawamoto applied to claim 1 are also applied to claim 2 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
The difference between the claims is that claim 2 recites a laminate structure of vapor-deposited PET/PBT/CPP, at least part of the PBT intermediate layer of each laminated film including the slitting portion, where the slitting portion is a cut that only partially penetrates through a thickness direction of the PBT layer and does not extend into the PET layer, and a thickness of the PBT layer remaining without being slit is at least 2 microns. Kanzaki et al. does not teach the above features.
Regarding the laminate structure and PBT being the intermediate layer, Miyake et al. teaches the base layer 21 can be a polyester such as PBT or PET (column 9 lines 48-49), the base layer 21 can be vapor deposited (column 9 line 64 to column 10 line 1), and the intermediate layer 22 can be a polyester film (column 10 lines 14-15).
Maseiker et al. teaches a laminate for tear-open packaging (abstract) comprising an outer cover layer 4 and intermediate layer 5 which can both be polyesters (figure 2; paragraph 24), where the polyester can be PET or PBT (paragraph 13), and the material of the intermediate layer can be partially cut by laser scoring 7.
The findings above suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that PET and PBT are recognized equivalents for outer and intermediate layers of food packaging laminates, where one of ordinary skill would have selected one or the other based on recognized performance variations for particular applications and/or market forces such as cost, availability, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the laminate of Kanzaki et al. such that the PET is the outer layer and the PBT is the intermediate layer for the same reasons stated for claim 1, as a substitution of art recognized equivalents suitable for the same purpose, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed structure, and therefore as a rearrangement of parts or a substitution between the layers, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C and 2144.06 II.
Regarding the slitting portion being a cut that only partially penetrates through a thickness direction of the PBT intermediate layer without penetrating the outer layer, and a thickness of said PBT layer remaining without being slit is at least 2 microns, Kawamoto et al. teaches the cutting line 3 can extend halfway in the thickness direction of intermediate layer 32 (paragraph 45), and does not extend into the outer layer 31 as stated for claim 1. Holmen teaches adjusting tear force by varying depth of the cut within the laminate (paragraphs 26-27).
While the cited references do explicitly recite the cut only partially penetrates the intermediate layer with at least 2 microns remaining, modifying Kanzaki et al. to have the claimed structure would have been obvious for the same reasons for modifying the cutting line location within the laminate and the cutting line depth stated in claim 1, and since the evidence of record does not indicate that the claimed features are critical or yield unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
The amendment to claim 1 necessitated new grounds of rejection. Tanaka is no longer relied upon due to the limitation “the slitting portion does not extend into the outer layer”, and is instead replaced with Coker which teaches scoring can be performed from the lower (inner) layer upward into an intermediate layer without extending into the outer layer.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 2-4 that PBT and PET cannot be interchanged in the laminate without considering their differing performance under heating conditions, citing documents A-D as evidence to show that PBT exhibits performance characteristics that differ from PET under elevated temperature and moisture conditions used during.
This is not persuasive since the argued conditions are directed to a preferred method of using the claimed product. Kanzaki et al. does not require subjecting the pouch to the argued conditions, and there is no indication that the microwaving process of Kanzaki et al. reaches the temperatures and humidity conditions of the cited documents. Regardless, the prior art recognizes that polyesters can be used for both the outer and intermediate layers, where PET and PBT are both polyesters commonly used in food packaging laminates. Miyake et al. explicitly states common polyesters used for the outer layer include PET and PBT (column 9 lines 44-49), and polyesters can be used as the intermediate layer for desired drop strength, thrust strength, or gas barrier property (column 10 lines 11-16). Likewise, Maseiker et al. teaches the intermediate layer is a polyester film (paragraph 14), where polyesters include PET or PBT (paragraph 13). Therefore, the prior art suggests either PET or PBT can be used as an intermediate layer, said layer being scored, with respect to materials used to form food packaging laminates.
Applicant argues on pages 5 and 6 that Kawamoto’s disclosure does not relate to a microwavable package and is not compatible with microwave use since the intermediate layer comprises a metallized polyester film, and one of ordinary skill would recognize a metallized layer is unsuitable for microwave heating.
This is not persuasive since the argued metallized polyester film of Kawamoto is not incorporated into the prior art combination. The reference is instead relied on to show that food packaging laminates can have a slice that extends through only the intermediate layer, without entering the outer layer. Regardless, Miyake et al. is relied on to teach vapor-deposited PET as the intermediate layer in microwavable packaging laminates, where the layer can include known gas-barrier materials such as aluminum oxide (column 9 lines 62-65). Kawamoto teaches the same material can be used in the intermediate layer for the same reason (paragraph 22), which indicates to one of ordinary skill that the package of Kawamoto can be microwaved.
Applicant’s argument against Tanaka has been fully considered but the reference is no longer relied upon.
Applicant argues on page 6 that Holmen teaches the scoring penetrates through the PET or other oriented film layer but not into the underlying layers, and therefore teaches cutting through the outer layer into the underlying layers.
This is not persuasive since the reference is not relied on to teach the location of the slitting portion within the laminate. Rather, Kawamoto is relied on to teach the location of the slit i.e., through only the intermediate layer, and Coker is relied on to show that the slit can be made starting from the inner layer upward. Thus, the modification to Kanzaki does not slit the outer layer. Holmen is relied on to teach that score lines present within laminates can have varying depths and extend between multiple layers to provide differences in particular properties (figure 5A; paragraphs 23 and 26-27), and further to show that a sealant (inner) layer can be partially slit.
Applicant argues on page 6 that Maseiker teaches score line 7 cuts completely through the cover layer 4 and therefore does not teach the outer layer remains uncut.
This is not persuasive since the reference is not relied on to teach the location of the slitting portion within the laminate. Kawamoto teaches the slit does not extend into the outer layer, and Holmen teaches varying score depth in order to control tearing characteristics as stated above. Maseiker is relied on to show that either PET or PBT can be used as the intermediate layer in a food packaging laminate comprising a cutting line that terminates partially through the intermediate layer. While the line 7 is disclosed to pass through the outer layer, this feature is not incorporated into the combination since the prior art recognizes a slit can be formed through only the intermediate layer as taught by Kawamoto.
Additionally, the evidence of record does not persuasively show criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed structure and depth of uncut PBT as recited in claim 2. See also Final Rejection (6/25/2025) “Response to Amendment” and “Response to Arguments” (pages 10-13).
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 BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571)-270-3475. 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792