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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 8, 10-12, 14-17, 21, 22, 30, 31 are 34-38 are currently pending and rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first elongate direction,” “second elongate direction,” the “non-elongate direction” and “a height” of the first and second oil resistant areas must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Similar to the above, the structure of “a first oil-resistant area” and “a second oil-resistant area” having a height limited to a corresponding height of the film portion in the non-elongate direction in combination with “a third oil-resistant area” and “a fourth oil-resistant area” which third and fourth oil resistant areas have a length that is limited to a corresponding length of the film portion in the elongate direction (claim 30) also cannot be found in the figures.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites, “the first fold line” on line 8 and 13. While it is clear that this limitation is referring to a first fold line of the first side portion and the second side portion, respectively, for matters of form, “the first fold line” should be amended to recite, “the first fold line of the first side portion” and “the first fold line of the second side portion” respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 30, 31 and 34 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 30 recites the limitation, “a third oil-resistant area located on the bottom portion that extends from the top of the film portion, wherein the third oil-resistant area has a length in an elongate direction that is limited to a corresponding length of the film portion in the elongate direction; and a fourth oil-resistant area located on the bottom portion that extends from the top of the film portion, wherein the fourth oil-resistant area has a length in an elongate direction that is limited to a corresponding length of the film portion in the elongate direction.” This limitation is new matter because Applicant’s specification does not clearly discuss that a length of the third and fourth oil-resistant areas is limited to a corresponding length of the film portion of the microwave susceptor film. Figures 8A-8C show a third and fourth oil-resistant area but do not show the length limited to a corresponding length of the film portion (50) of the microwave susceptor film (see item 33c and 33d). On page 47, lines 4-19, the specification discusses that oil-resistant areas may have a consistent length and width, different lengths and/or widths and where the third and fourth oil-resistant areas are not in contact with the first and second oil-resistant areas; however, this does not reasonably support that a length of the third and fourth oil-resistant areas is limited to a corresponding length of the film portion in the elongate direction.
Claim 31 is rejected based on its dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim 34 recites, “wherein the first side and the second side of the microwave susceptor film are tapered.” This limitation is new matter because when discussing tapering, Applicant’s originally filed disclosure supports that it is the microwave interactive material that can be tapered to extend the interactive material laterally in the bottom portion without crossing the fold lines, and not the tapering of the microwave susceptor film (see page 30, lines 24-26 and page 31, lines 1-6).
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, 7-18, 21, 22, 25-31, 34 and 35 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 limitation, “wherein the film portion continuously extends across the bottom portion, the first fold line, and into the first side portion in the first elongate direction, and continuously extends across the bottom portion, the first fold line and into the second side portion in the second elongate direction” (see lines 23-26). The two recitations of, “the first fold line” lack proper antecedent basis because they do not specify whether they are of the first side portion and the second side portion.
This rejection can be overcome by amending the limitation to recite, “wherein the film portion continuously extends across the bottom portion, the first fold line of the first side portion, and into the first side portion in the first elongate direction, and continuously extends across the bottom portion, the first fold line of the second side portion and into the second side portion in the second elongate direction.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “wherein the first oil-resistant area continuously extends from proximate the first side of the film portion further into the first side portion in the first elongate direction” (lines 35-37) and “wherein the second oil-resistant area continuously extends from proximate the second side of the film portion further into the second side portion in the second elongate direction” (lines 42-44). The limitation, “further into” in both instances is indefinite because it appears to be directed to a comparison of how much the oil resistant areas extend in the first and second elongate direction but there is not clarity with respect to what does the first and second oil resistant area extend further into the first and second side portion.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the non-elongate direction” on lines 38, 39, 45, 45, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 1, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 34-36 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “are equivalent in size.” This limitation is unclear as to what can be construed as “size” of the oil resistant areas and the microwave susceptor film, thus making the scope of what can be construed as an “equivalent size” unclear. That is, it is not clear whether “size” is referring to length and width together or individually, or a particular surface area, for example.
Claim 17 recites the limitation, “the non-elongate direction” on lines 39, 40, 47, 48, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 30 recites, “the top” on line 48 and “the bottom” on line 52, which lacks proper antecedent basis because on lines 22-23 the claim refers to “a top side” and “a bottom side” thus making the claim unclear as to what “the top” and “the bottom” are referring to.
Claim 37 and 38 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation, “wherein the first oil-resistant area further continuously extends into the first side portion and across the gusset fold in the first elongate direction and wherein the second oil-resistant area further continuously extends into the second side portion and across the gusset fold in the second elongate direction.” The limitation, “further” in both instances is indefinite because it appears to be directed to a comparison of how much the oil resistant areas extend in the first and second elongate direction but there is not clarity with respect to what does the first and second oil resistant area extend further into the first and second side portion.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 15, 16 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France (US 20210086976) in view of Cox (US 5679278).
Regarding claim 1, France teaches a microwave popcorn bag (see the abstract) comprising:
An elongate blank (see figure 4) that includes:
a bottom portion centrally positioned within the elongate blank (see also figure 4, where the central portion of the blank can be construed as the bottom portion centrally positioned within the elongate blank, because this is similar to how item 34 is shown in Figure 7 of Applicant’s drawings as a centrally positioned bottom portion) including an interior surface adapted to support a plurality of popcorn kernels (figure 3, item 21A, 30). Figure 4 of France has been annotated below:
PNG
media_image1.png
649
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
France further discloses a first side portion wherein a first fold line exists between the first side portion and the bottom portion in a first elongate direction, and wherein the first side portion includes a first side edge in the first elongate direction and a second side portion, wherein a first fold line exists between the second side portion and the bottom portion in a second elongate direction that is opposite the first elongate direction, wherein the second side portion includes a first side edge in the second elongate direction. See annotated figure 4 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
772
1210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
France discloses that the first side edge of the first side portion and the first side edge of the second side portion are joined to define a top portion of the microwave popcorn bag to create an interior space defined between the bottom portion, the top portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion (figure 3, item 30; see figure 4, item 85A and 84A and paragraph 94);
As shown in figure 3, France teaches that the interior space has been defined between the bottom portion, the top portion and the first and second side portions.
France further teaches that there is a microwave susceptor film (figure 3, item 45; paragraph 85), laminated (see paragraph 86) between an inner layer (figure 3, item 46) and an outer layer (figure 3, item 21) of the bottom portion.
The microwave susceptor film includes a microwave interactive portion, which microwave interactive portion receives microwaves and applies heat to the plurality of popcorn kernels (see paragraph 85 - “thermoconductive contact with a popcorn charge retention surface…”).
Claim 1 differs from France in specifically reciting, “the microwave susceptor film includes a film portion and a microwave interactive portion that has been applied to the film portion,” and “wherein the microwave interactive portion is contained solely within the bottom portion, and wherein the film portion continuously extends across the bottom portion, the first fold line, and into the first side portion in the first elongate direction, and continuously extends across the bottom portion, the first fold line and into the second side portion in the second elongate direction.”
Cox teaches a popcorn bag comprising a microwave interactive portion (see figure 1 and 2, item 50 and which microwave interactive portion has been applied to a film portion (figure 4, item 40; figure 6, item 44) and which combination is positioned between an inner layer 38 and an outer layer 42 of the bottom portion (see also figure 6). Cox teaches that the microwave interactive portion is contained solely within the bottom portion of the microwave popcorn bag (see figure 1 and 6, item 50) and the film portion (40,44) continuously extends across the bottom portion, the first fold line (figure 6, item 52) and into the first side portion in the first elongate direction (Figure 6, between item 26 and 52) and continuously extends across the bottom portion, the first fold line and into the second side portion in the second elongate direction (figure 6, between item 54 and 28). Cox teaches that this configuration is useful for also enabling complete containment of low-saturation liquid oils at room temperatures and which is nearly impervious to moisture, water vapor and gas transmission needed to reduce the consumption of high-saturated oils or fats, enhance the quality of the popcorn or other product and simply the manufacturing process and reduce costs, while also eliminating oil heating and downtime related to il solidifying in oil lines and depositing in equipment, simplifying cleaning and eliminating the need for overwrapping equipment and overwrap film (see column 2, lines 40-52).
To therefore modify France and to provide a microwave susceptor film that includes a film portion and a microwave interactive portion, where the microwave interactive portion is contained solely within the bottom portion and wherein the film portion extends continuously across the bottom portion, the first fold line of the first side portion and into the first side portion as well as across the first fold line of the second side portion and into the second side portion, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process of assembling together the bag with the microwave susceptor.
Regarding the limitation of, “a first oil-resistant area located proximate a first side of the film portion, wherein the first oil-resistant area continuously extends from proximate the first side of the film portion further into the first side portion in the first elongate direction, and wherein the first oil-resistant area has a height in the non-elongate direction, wherein the first oil-resistant area comprises an oil-resistant sealant” and
“a second oil-resistant area located proximate a second side of the film portion, wherein the second oil-resistant area continuously extends from proximate the second side of the film portion further into the second side portion in the second elongate direction, and wherein the second oil-resistant area has a height in the non-elongate direction that is limited to the corresponding height of the film portion in the non-elongate direction, wherein the second oil- resistant area comprises the oil-resistant sealant,” France discloses in figure 4 and 5, that there are sealant fields (figure 4, item 53, 54, 150 and 56, 57, 153) that are on a first and second side of the microwave susceptor film positioned at 63. France discloses that the sealant fields can function as coating sealant fields that can provide a liquid barrier including providing oil and grease resistance (see paragraph 115) and extend from and can overlap with the first and second side of the susceptor (see figure 4 where fields 150 and 153 extend from and overlap with the folds; see paragraph 101 and 103). The sealant fields 150 and 153 extend across folds 66 and 67 and therefore extend into the first and second side portions in the first and second elongate direction. Because France teaches that the sealant 52-57 can extend from edge 92A to edge 89A, France is teaching the first and second oil-resistant areas having a height in a non-elongate direction that is limited to the corresponding height of the film portion that has been taught by Cox. Because the claims do not limit the particular distance that the film portion of the microwave susceptor film extends in the first and second elongate direction, the sealant fields as discussed above can also be construed as being “proximate” a first and second side of the film portion, because the term’s “a first side” and “a second side” can be construed as regions of the film portion that are to the left and right of the microwave interactive portion, and against which can abut the first and second oil resistant areas:
PNG
media_image3.png
391
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
452
857
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, as shown in figure 3, France discloses that the first side portion includes a gusset fold intermediate the first fold line and the first side edge of the first side portion in the first elongate direction (see figure 3, item 38-40), and the second side portion includes a gusset fold intermediate the first fold line of the second side portion in the second elongate direction (see figure 3, item 33-35).
Regarding claim 11, France discloses that the first oil-resistant area extends into the first side portion an entire distance between the bottom portion and the top portion, and wherein the second oil-resistant area extends into the second side portion the entire distance between the bottom portion and the top portion (see figure 4, where sealant fields 50, 51 can be construed as part of the first and second oil-resistant areas that extend into the first and second side portions the entire distance between the top and bottom portion; see paragraph 115 which teaches that all the sealant fields can be oil-resistant areas).
Regarding claim 15, France discloses a third oil-resistant area on the bottom portion and extends from a top of the microwave susceptor film wherein the third oil- resistant area comprises an oil-resistant substance. (see figure 4, item 51, 51F and 62 and the discussion above with respect to the first and second oil resistant area; paragraph 115).
Regarding 16, France discloses a fourth oil-resistant area on the bottom portion that extends from of the microwave susceptor film, wherein the fourth oil-resistant area comprises the oil-resistant substance (see figure 4, item 50 and 50F and the discussion above with respect to the first and second oil resistant areas; paragraph 115)
Regarding claim 35, France’s first and second oil resistant area do not cover the inner layer that is positioned above the microwave susceptor film, such as the inner layer 48, positioned near item 35 and 40. As shown in Applicant’s figure 2B for example, the oil resistant areas 33a and 33b are not covering the inner layer 64 at the top of the package that is above the susceptor and similarly, there is no oil resistant area in the same position of France’s inner layer. Also, at paragraph 104, France teaches that the sealant fields 150 and 153 can be 45% of the length of the bag such that there would have been a portion of the inner layer above the microwave susceptor film that did not have oil-resistant areas. At paragraph 113, France teaches that one or more additional sealant fields are optional, thus further teaching and suggesting some portions of the inner layer that would have been positioned above the microwave susceptor film that did not have the first and second oil resistant area. This is also supported by figure 18 and paragraphs 124-125, which shows sealant fields 210 and 211, which can be oil resistant areas but which would not cover the inner layer that is positioned above the microwave susceptor film but can also overlap with the fold lines 66 and 67.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on France (US 20210086976) as the primary reference, and in further view of Jackson (US 20050191399) and Monier (US 5871790).
Regarding claim 12, the claim differs from France in reciting that the first and second oil-resistant area and the microwave susceptor film are equivalent in size.
It is noted that the claim does not limit what size is being referred to. For instance, the claim is not limiting as to whether this is an area or particular dimensions. In this regard, since France teaches that sealant fields 52, 53, 56 and 57 can extend from edge 92A to edge 89A and since Cox teaches that the microwave susceptor film can also extend from edge to edge, the combination is suggesting a size, such as a height of the firs oil resistant area, second oil resistant area and microwave susceptor being equivalent in size. Furthermore, Jackson also teaches microwavable popcorn bags where there can be sealant fields (see figure 8, item 410-413), which can be oil resistant (see paragraph 163). At figure 6, item 150-153, Jackson also discloses other shapes of sealant fields having a dimension that would appear to be similar to that of the susceptor positioned at 63). Jackson thus teaches that the oil-resistant sealant areas can vary in size. Additionally, Monier, who teaches the inner layer figure 4, item 18, that can cover the entirety of the susceptor 17, while providing an oil/grease impervious layer (see column 4, lines 22-28).
Therefore, to modify France so that the first oil resistant area, the second oil resistant area and the microwave susceptor film are equivalent in size, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious change in the size for achieving the requisite degree of oil-resistance to the microwave popcorn bag.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on France (US 20210086976) as the primary reference, and as further evidenced by Casey
Regarding claim 14, France discloses that the bottom portion, the top portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion are each comprised of a fibrous material (see paragraph 87 where it would have been known to one having ordinary skill in the art that paper is a fibrous material). It is noted that Applicant’s specification also refers to fibrous materials as paper products (page 1, lines 23-25). Furthermore, Casey further evidences that it has been known that paper is a fibrous material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that France’s teaching of using paper for the bag would have encompassed fibrous material.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on France (US 20210086976) as the primary reference, and in further view of Hanson (US 20030080118), Blankenbeckler (US 20040173607) and Watkins (US 10893582). The definition of “taper” has been relied on as evidence.
Claim 34 differs from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting wherein the first side and the second side of the microwave susceptor film are tapered.
It is noted however, that France appears to teach the first and second side of the susceptor have a taper. See annotated figure 3 below:
PNG
media_image5.png
294
281
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
252
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
If it could have been construed that France was not clear in this regard, then it is also noted that Hanson teaches that the particular length of the microwave interactive material can vary such that there is no requirement that the metallic material 45b cover the entire surface of the susceptor 45a (see paragraph 30) and therefore is suggesting a reduction in the thickness of the microwave susceptor film. Also, Blankenbeckler teaches that the susceptor layers by be tapered so that the change in ability to absorb microwave radiation will gradually vary across the surface of the susceptor containing material (see paragraph 28). In this light, Watkins also teaches a microwave susceptor (see figure 3 and 4) where the susceptor material can be demetallized toward corners (see figure 3, item 34) where it is not as desired to apply heat to a food item (see column 6, lines 3-16). By demetallizing the susceptor layer, Watkins is teaching a tapering of the susceptor, especially as the plain meaning of the term, “taper” can mean to become smaller or thinner toward one end, and by demetallizing the susceptor, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Watkins is teaching that the susceptor would become thinner toward the end.
To therefore modify the combination and to taper the first and second end of France’s susceptor would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of controlling the degree of heating created by the susceptor near the ends of the package, as suggested by Blankenbeckler and Watkins.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on France (US 20210086976) as the primary reference and in further view of Irace (US 20210114793).
Regarding claim 36, the combination as applied to claim 1 teaches that the microwave susceptor film and therefore the film portion is laminated between the inner layer and the outer layer of the bottom portion.
Claim 36 differs in specifically reciting, “wherein the film portion of the microwave susceptor film that is laminated between the inner layer and the outer layer of the bottom portion comprises a biodegradable cellulosic material.”
However, Irace teaches a microwave susceptor film (figure 2 and 3, item 42, 44) between an inner layer (figure 3, item 32) and an outer layer (figure 3, item 34) and which microwave susceptor film comprises a film portion (figure 3, item 42 and paragraph 24) and a microwave interactive portion (figure 3, item 44 and paragraph 25). Irace teaches that the film portion comprises a biodegradable cellulosic material (see paragraph 24) and where such biodegradability has been desirable to reduce the amount of waste materials diverted to landfills (see paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination as applied to claim 1 and to have used a biodegracable cellulosic material for the film portion for making the packaging more environmentally friendly.
Claims 17, 21, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 20050191399) in view of Irace (US 20210114793) and Hanson (US 20030080118).
Regarding claim 17, Jackson teaches a microwave popcorn bag (see the abstract) comprising:
an elongate blank that includes:
a bottom portion centrally positioned within the elongate blank (see figure 6, between item 66 and 67) including an interior surface adapted to support a plurality of popcorn kernels (figure 4). The central portion of Jackson’s blank can be construed as the bottom portion centrally positioned within the elongate blank, because this is similar to how item 34 is shown in Figure 7 of Applicant’s drawings as a centrally positioned bottom portion.
PNG
media_image7.png
563
804
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Jackson further discloses a first side portion wherein a first fold line exists between the first side portion and the bottom portion in a first elongate direction, and wherein a gusset fold exists between the first fold line and a first side edge of the first side portion in the elongate direction and a second side portion, wherein a first fold line exists between the second side portion and the bottom portion in a second elongate direction that is opposite the first elongate direction and wherein a gusset fold line exists between the first fold line and a first side a first side edge in the second elongate direction. See annotated figure 6 below:
PNG
media_image8.png
764
1142
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Jackson discloses that the first side edge of the first side portion and the first side edge of the second side portion are joined to define a top portion of the microwave popcorn bag to create an interior space defined between the bottom portion, the top portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion (figure 4, item 42; see figure 6, item 84a and 85A and paragraph 57);
Jackson discloses a microwave susceptor film (figure 4, item 45; paragraph 51), laminated (see paragraph 90) between an inner layer (figure 4, item 46) and an outer layer (figure 4, item 21) of the bottom portion, wherein the microwave susceptor film receives microwaves and applies heat to the plurality of popcorn kernels (see paragraph 204 - “thermoconductive contact with a popcorn charge retention surface…”).
Jackson further teaches a microwave susceptor positioned only in the bottom portion because in figure 6, the susceptor is bound by sides 62 (see paragraph 54) and which sides are within fold lines 66 and 67 and therefore is solely in the bottom of the elongated blank. Jackson further teaches sealant fields (figure 6, item 151, 153) that have a height that is limited to a corresponding height of the susceptor (see also figure 14, item P). Jackson also teaches that the purpose of the fields is to resist the flow of oil/fat there across (see paragraph 80, 163) and is therefore teaching and suggesting a first oil-resistant area, having an oil-resistant sealant, located proximate a first side of the film portion, wherein the first oil-resistant area continuously extends from proximate the first side of the film portion across the first fold line of the first side portion and into the first side portion in the first elongate direction, and wherein the first oil-resistant area has a height in the non-elongate direction that is limited to a corresponding height of the film portion in the non-elongate direction and a second oil-resistant area, having an oil-resistant sealant, located proximate a second side of the film portion, wherein the second oil-resistant area continuously extends from proximate the second side of the film portion across the first fold line of the second side portion and into the second side portion in the second elongate direction, and wherein the second oil-resistant area has a height in the non-elongate direction that is limited to a corresponding height of the film portion in the non-elongate direction.
Claim 17 differs from Jackson in specifically reciting, wherein the microwave susceptor film includes a film portion and a microwave interactive portion.
Irace teaches a microwave susceptor film (figure 2 and 3, item 42, 44) between an inner layer (figure 3, item 32) and an outer layer (figure 3, item 34) and which microwave susceptor film comprises a film portion (figure 3, item 42 and paragraph 24) and a microwave interactive portion (figure 3, item 44 and paragraph 25), both of which are contained solely within the bottom portion (see figure 1, item 40, which is between folds 26).
Hanson teaches a microwave popcorn bag (see figure 4) folded in a similar manner as Jackson, and where the microwave susceptor is laminated between an inner and outer layer (see paragraph 70 and item 45a, between item 46 and 47) can be retained totally within the bottom area 5 or can extend into the folds (A and B)(see paragraph 29 and 30). The microwave susceptor film includes a film portion (45a) and a microwave interactive portion (45b) (see paragraph 46). By teaching that the susceptor can be totally retained within area 5 and in view of figure 4 showing the susceptor is spaced from folds 34 and 39, Hanson is teaching that the microwave susceptor film including a film portion and a microwave interactive portion are contained solely within the bottom portion, for achieving the desired type of heating (see paragraph 30).
To therefore modify Jackson and to use a microwave susceptor film that includes a film portion and a microwave interactive portion that has been applied to the film portion and where both the film portion and the microwave interactive portion are contained solely within the bottom portion would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on a conventional expedient by which to include a microwave susceptor film as part of a microwave popcorn bag.
Regarding claims 21 and 38, Jackson discloses that the first oil-resistant sealant field can extend into the first side portion an entire distance between the bottom portion and the top portion, and wherein the second oil-resistant area extends into the second side portion the entire distance between the bottom portion and the top portion (see figure 8, where sealant fields 410-413 can be construed as first and second oil-resistant areas that extend from the first and second side portions to the top portion). While this is not specific to the embodiment of figure 6, Jackson teaches that the purpose of the sealant fields is to control wicking and leakage (see paragraphs 38-41) and that the seal arrangements can also be varied as desired to inhibit oil/fat migration (see paragraphs 12-15). In view of these teachings, Jackson also suggests the first and second oil resistant areas across the gusset folds as recited in claim 38. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jackson’s sealant fields such that they also extend to the first and second side portion of the blank, across Jackson’s gusset folds and into the top portion, so as to extend the bag’s resistance to leakage and wicking to also areas positioned above the food charge.
Regarding claim 37, the combination as applied to claim 17 teaches that the microwave susceptor film and therefore the film portion is laminated between the inner layer and the outer layer of the bottom portion. In view of Irace the combination teaches that the film portion comprises a biodegradable cellulosic material (see paragraph 24) and where such biodegradability has been desirable to reduce the amount of waste materials diverted to landfills (see paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a biodegradable cellulosic material for the film portion for making the packaging more environmentally friendly.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 which relies on France as the primary reference and as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 17 which relies on Jackson as the primary reference, above, both in further view of Egan (US 20050008736)
It is noted that claims 10 and 22 present the same structural limitations but claim 10 depends from claim 1 and claim 22 depends from claim 17. Therefore the limitations are being addressed together as presented below.
Regarding claim 10, France discloses that the oil-resistant substance does not include fluorocarbons (see the abstract and paragraph 115), thus suggesting that the oil resistant coating sealant fields also do not perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. That is, France discloses that no fluorocarbons are present and further does not recite the presence of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which are also known fluorocarbon substances. Therefore, France teaches and suggests that the oil-resistant substance excludes both perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Regarding claim 22, Jackson is similar to France because the reference teaches using non-fluorocarbon treated paper (see at least, paragraph 187-189) and does not discuss perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
It is further noted that non-fluorocarbon layers have been known in the art of microwaveable popcorn packaging to provide oil-resistance, as evidenced by Egan (see the figures and paragraph 47 - microwave popcorn bags; see the abstract, “does not contain fluorocarbons, which improves the environmental rating of the oil and greaser barrier packaging”).
To therefore modify the combination relying on France as the primary reference and to modify the combination relying on Jackson as the primary reference, and use other known types of non-fluorocarbon treated layers would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further provide oil-resistance to the package.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 20050191399) in view of Irace (US 20210114793) and Hanson (US 20030080118) and in further view of Olson (US 6049072) and France (US US 20210086976).
Regarding claim 30 in view of Jackson as applied to claim 17 the combination teaches the claimed microwave popcorn bag comprising an elongate blank, which elongate blank includes the bottom portion centrally positioned within the elongate blank, the first side portion and the second side portion and with the first side edge and the second side edge being joined to define a top portion of the microwave popcorn bag to create the interior space. Jackson teaches the microwave susceptor are solely contained within the bottom portion and Jackson further teaches and suggests the first and second oil resistant areas, with a height hat is limited to a corresponding height of the film portion in the non-elongate direction, as already discussed above with respect to claim 17. In view of Irace and Hanson the combination teaches a microwave susceptor film laminated between an inner and outer layer of the bottom portion and the microwave susceptor film includes a film portion and a microwave interactive portion.
As shown in figure 1, Irace teaches the film portion of the microwave susceptor includes a top, bottom, first and second side (see figure 1, item 40), because the susceptor film has a coating applied to the film portion (paragraph 34). As shown in figure 1 and 3, the film portion and the interactive portion are solely contained within the bottom portion.
Regarding a third oil resistant area located on the bottom portion that extends from the top of the film portion, wherein the third oil-resistant area has a length in an elongate direction that is limited to a corresponding length of the film portion in the elongate direction; and a fourth oil-resistant area located on the bottom portion that extends from the bottom of the film portion, where in the fourth oil-resistant area has a length in the elongate direction that is limited to a corresponding length of the film portion int eh elongate direction, the claim differs from Jackson in this regard.
However, Olson teaches a microwave popcorn bag that comprises seals (see figure 8, item 193) that surround a microwave interactive layer (see figure 8, item 191, 194). As shown in figure 8, a height of the vertical seals can be construed to be limited to a corresponding height of the susceptor and a length of the seals in the elongate direction can be construed as being limited to a length of the susceptor (see column 9, lines 46-61; see column 8, lines 11-15 which discloses that the seal region is commensurate in size to the area covered by the microwvae interactive material and therefore is teaching a height and a length that is limited to that of the microwvae interactive material. Jackson also teaches in figure 8, for example, that the sealant fields extend across a length of the microwave interactive material.
France also teaches sealant fields that can provide oil/grease resistance (see paragraph 115) and which can extend across a length of a microwave interactive layer (see figure 18, item 210, 211 and paragraph 125).
Jackson also teaches that it has been known to use a variety of different sealing arrangements for inhibiting oil/fat migration to the package (see paragraph 13-15 and figure 8). To therefore modify Jackson’s embodiment of figure 6 and to also include a third and fourth oil-resistant area extending from a top and bottom of the film portion with a length corresponding to a length of the film portion, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on known expedients for how one can provide seals surrounding a microwave interactive layer.
Regarding claim 31, the combination as applied to claim 30 teaches overlap between the first oil resistant area and the first side of the microwave susceptor film; overlap between the second oil-resistant area and the second side of the microwave susceptor film.
Regarding the overlap between the third oil-resistant area and the top of the microwave susceptor film and overlap between the fourth oil resistant area and the bottom of the microwave susceptor film, as applied to claim 30, the combination teaches second and third oil resistant areas comprising an oil-resistant substance. Furthermore, France teaches that seals 51F and 50F are oil resistant areas (paragraph 115) and that the susceptor can be bound by reference character 62.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have overlapped the third and fourth oil resistant areas of Jackson’s sealant fields with the susceptor film, for the similar purpose that the first and second oil resistant areas overlap with a first and second side of the microwave susceptor film.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendment to the claims, the obviousness type double patenting rejections over U.S Application No. 17845513 and U.S. Patent No. 11407577 have been withdrawn.
On pages 12-14 of the response, Applicant urges that the prior art does not provide a reason to combine the prior art elements in the manner claimed and further does not teach a film portion of the susceptor extending continuously across the bottom portion and across the first fold lines of the first and second portions in the respective first and second elongate directions, as well as failing to teach a height of the first and second oil resistant area having a height that is limited to a corresponding height of the film portion. Applicant further urges that claims 17 and 30 recite that the film portion and the microwave interactive portion are solely within the bottom portion of the microwave popcorn bag and that the oil resistant material continuously extends from proximate each of the side edges of the film portion of the susceptor across a first fold line and into the first side and the second side portion.
These arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment to the claims. It is further noted that the prior art as relied on in this Office Action, further teaches and suggests a reason for providing a microwave susceptor film with a microwave interactive material only within the bottom portion of the microwave bag and with the film portion extending into the first and second portions such as for simplifying the manufacturing process.
On page 15 of the response, Applicant urges that France teaches that the first and second oil-resistant areas do not have a height in the non-elongate direction that is limited to a corresponding height of the film portion and also does not teach third and fourth oil resistant areas having a length in the elongate direction that is limited to a corresponding length of the film portion in the elongate direction.
These arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
On page 16 of the response, Applicant urges that Hanson does not teach first and second oil-resistant areas having a height that is limited to a corresponding height of the film portion.
This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented in this Office Action. It is noted that Hanson has only been relied on to teach the positioning of a microwave susceptor film comprising a film portion and a microwave interactive material, both of which are solely within a centrally located bottom portion of the microwave popcorn bag.
On pages 16-17 of the response, Applicant urges that Jackson fails to teach first and second oil resistant areas having a height in the non-elongate direction that is limited to a corresponding height of the film portion in the non-elongate direction.
This argument is not persuasive because Jackson teaches in figure 6 sealant fields that can be construed as oil-resistant areas which are limited to a corresponding height of a microwave susceptor film, which film is solely within a centrally located bottom portion of the microwave popcorn bag.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792