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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallen et al. (US-20040191476-A1) (previously cited) in view of Goihman et al. (US-20190071200-A1) (previously cited) and Mir (US-20210039855-A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Wallen teaches a laminate suitable for incorporation in a moisture controlled fresh produce container (Wallen, Abstract and Par. 0001). Wallen teaches the laminate comprises a first film layer (inner layer) that is heat-sealable, and a second film layer (outer layer) laminated to the first film layer (Wallen, Par. 0011-0012, 0023-0025, and 0033-0038).
Wallen is silent regarding the first film layer having a water vapor transport rate that is no greater than 3 g-mil/100in2-day @ 100°F and 90% relative humidity. Wallen is silent regarding the second film layer having a water vapor transport rate that is greater than 10 g-mil/1002-day @ 100°F and 90% relative humidity.
Goihman teaches a laminate for a fresh produce container, wherein the laminate comprises a first film (second layer) having a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of 10-100 g/m2-day @ 23°C (73°F) and 50% relative humidity with a thickness of 0.53-5 µm and a second film (first layer) having a WVTR of 30 to 200 g/m2-day @ 23°C (73°F) and 50% relative humidity with a thickness of 5-30 µm (Goihman, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0003, 0028-0031, and 0036-0037). This results in a first film WVTR of ~0.013 to 1.27 g/100in2-day per mil, which lies within the claimed range of no greater than 3 g-mil/100in2-day, and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. This further results in a second film WVTR of ~ 0.38 to 15.22 g/1002-day per mil, which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 10 g-mil/1002-day and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Although Goihman measures WVTR with a method that is different from the claimed method (i.e., measured at 73°F and 50% RH instead of 100°F and 90% RH, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that differences between the two different methods would yield minor and obvious differences, and that if Goihman’s laminate was also measured with the claimed method, it would still yield a WVTR that renders obvious the claimed WVTR (see MPEP 2143 and MPEP 2144.05, I).
Wallen and Goihman are analogous art as they both teach laminates for fresh produce comprising first and second film layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created the first and second film layers of Wallen to have water vapor transport rates within the claimed ranges. This would allow for control of the amount of water vapor in the container, preventing microbial decay (Goihman, Par. 0003).
Modified Wallen is silent regarding at least on moisture transport window (MTW), said MTW being a region of the laminate film that includes the second film layer but does not include the first film layer, said at least one MTW being present in the laminate film before the laminate film is incorporated in the moisture controlled fresh produce container.
Mir teaches a container for fresh produce formed of a laminate comprising a first inner film and a second outer film (Mir, Abstract, Par. 0018-0019, 0038, 0063). Mir teaches a moisture vapor window (precision cuts 150), said window being a region of the laminate that includes the second outer film but does not include the first inner film (Mir, Par. 0071-0073). Mir teaches the moisture vapor window (precision cuts) are cut into the laminate itself and thus is present before the laminate is incorporated in the moisture controlled fresh produce container (Mir, Par. 0021, 0079, Figs 1C, 1E, 3, and 5).
Modified Wallen and Mir are analogous art as they both teach containers for fresh produce formed of a laminate comprising first and second film layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a moisture vapor window in the laminate of modified Wallen, such that the window is a region of the laminate that includes the second film layer but does not include the first film layer. This would allow for a pressure activated steam venting mechanism (Mir, Par. 0071-0073).
Regarding the limitation of the degree of moisture transport of the film being controlled according to the water transport rate of the second film layer, a number of the MTW’s and sizes of the MTW’s, modified Wallen teaches the first and second film layers each have a water transport rate as stated in the grounds of rejection above (Goihman, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0003, 0028-0031, and 0036-0037). As each film layer has a water transport rate, each film layer would contribute to some extent, the moisture transport rate of the overall laminate film as each layer would block some moisture. This further results in the moisture transport of the film being controlled according to the water transport rate of the second film layer. Furthermore, since the at least one MTW is a section that includes the second film layer but not the first film layer and the first film layer has a water transport rate, the size and number of MTW’s would affect the moisture transport of the overall laminate by removing part of a film layer (the first film layer) which has a water transport rate, thus satisfying the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wallen teaches the first film layer is a layer of heat-sealable polyethylene terephthalate (PET film) (Wallen, Par. 0034-0037, and Claim 8).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wallen teaches the second film layer is a layer of polyamide (nylon) (Wallen, Par. 0034-0037).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wallen teaches the laminate comprises a plurality of microperforations suitable for establishing a modified gaseous atmosphere within the fresh produce container (Wallen, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0003, 0013, and 0030).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wallen teaches a fresh produce container comprising: an interior surrounded by container walls, at least one of the container walls being at least partially formed by the laminated film according to claim 1 (Wallen, Abstract, Par. 0001, and 0022 – see “packaging”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wallen teaches a container (package) formed from the laminate and thus teaches all of the container walls comprise the laminate film (Wallen, Abstract, Par. 0001, and 0022)
Regarding claim 8, modified Wallen teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 6. Modified Wallen is silent regarding the laminate film being a lidding film applied to an underlying rigid or semi-rigid container.
Mir teaches a container for fresh produce formed of a laminate, wherein the laminate is a lidding film applied to an underlying rigid container (tray) (Mir, Abstract, Par. 0018-0019, 0038-0039, 0063).
Modified Wallen and Mir are analogous art as they both teach containers for fresh produce. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the container of modified Wallen to be a lidding film applied to an underlying rigid container. This would allow for a container for food products that is gas permeable (Mir, Par. 0038-0039; Wallen, Par. 0011).
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Wallen teaches attachment of the laminate film so as to form the container is by heat-sealing of the first film layer (Wallen, Par. 0022-0023, 0033-0034, and 0051). Furthermore, the heat-sealing of the first film layer would result in seams where the first film layer is heat-sealed, and thus the heat-sealing induces heat-sealing together of seam regions of the first film layer as required by claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wallen teaches the fresh produce container of claims 8-9 as stated above. Modified Wallen teaches the laminate film is a lidding film applied to an underlying rigid tray, and heat-sealing includes heat-sealing of attachment regions of the first film layer to an upper rip of the underlying rigid tray (Mir, Abstract, Par. 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 21, modified Wallen teaches the size and amount of the MTW’s affect the MTW’s ability to vent out excess pressure when heated (Mir, Par. 0021, 0079 and Figs. 1C, 1E, 3, and 5), and thus teaches that an area of the MTW’s, and an aggregate area of all of the MTW’s are result effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization, to vary the size and amount of the MTW’s, and thus the individual and aggregate areas of the MTW’s, to within the claimed ranges with a reasonable expectation of achieving adequate breathability properties, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallen et al. in view of Goihman et al. and Mir as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sankey et al. (US 20060165958 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wallen teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Wallen further teaches a variety of different materials may be used for the second film layer including polyamide (nylon) (Wallen, Par. 0034-0037).
Modified Wallen is silent regarding the second film layer being a cellulose of polylactic acid layer of film.
Sankey teaches a laminate for fresh produce containers, wherein the laminate comprises a first layer, and a second layer that is water vapor permeable, wherein the second layer may be formed of polyamide or cellulose (Sankey, Abstract, Par. 0041, 0045-0047, 0054, 0076).
Modified Wallen and Sankey are analogous art as they both teach laminates for fresh produce containers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used cellulose as the material for the second film layer of modified Wallen. This would allow for a moisture permeable layer (Sankey, Par. 004, and 0045-0047).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the figures provide adequate support for claim 21.
Examiner agrees and claim 21 is not rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
Regarding arguments directed to the rejections over prior art, on pages 10-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Mir does not teach that the MTW is present before the laminate film is incorporated into the packaging. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Mir teaches a MTW (precision cuts) that is cut into the film and can vary in length, width, and number (Mir, Par. 0021, 0079, Figs 1C, 1E, 3, and 5). As the precision cuts are cut into the laminate during production, the precision cuts (And thus the MTW’s) are present in the laminate before the laminate is incorporated into the packaging. Applicant states that the windows are not present until microwaving, however, the precision cuts are cut into the laminate and thus exist before microwaving (See, figs 1C, 1E, 3,and 5). Therefore, Mir satisfies the claimed limitation and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Secondly, on page 11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Mir does not teach the area of the MTW’s as required by new claim 21. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Modified Wallen teaches the size and amount of the MTW’s affect the MTW’s ability to vent out excess pressure when heated (Mir, Par. 0021, 0079 and Figs. 1C, 1E, 3, and 5), and thus teaches that an area of the MTW’s, and an aggregate area of all of the MTW’s are result effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization, to vary the size and amount of the MTW’s, and thus the individual and aggregate areas of the MTW’s, to within the claimed ranges with a reasonable expectation of achieving adequate breathability properties, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Mir renders obvious the claimed MTW area ranges and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights