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 .
Response to Amendment
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and rejected.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s reply filed December 16, 2025 states that paragraph 55 of the specification is amended for clarity (see the top of page 12 of Applicant’s remarks). On the top of page 5, the amendment to the specification indicates that paragraph 0063 of the instant application should be replaced. However, paragraph 0063 of Applicant’s originally filed specification is different from the currently filed amendment. It appears that Applicant might be intending to amend paragraph 0053 of the originally filed specification and not paragraph 0063. For these reasons, the amendments to the specification as presented in the response filed December 16, 2025 are not entered.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite, “a seal formed in the bag structure to join a portion of the inner ply and the outer ply, the seal having a width of from about 0.30in to about 0.45in and configured to prevent substantial blistering between the adhesive and at least one of the inner ply or the outer ply at the plurality of heat seal coating regions.” Claims 3 and 13 further limit, “the seal” to being “a longitudinal seal.” The above limitation in claims 1 and 11 is not clear because it appears to recite that there is “a seal formed” in the bag structure, having a width of 0.30 to about 0.45inches that can prevent blistering between the adhesive and at least one of the inner or outer play at all of the plurality of heat seal coating regions. Applicant’s specification indicates that there can be heat seal coating regions 418, 420 and 422 that can be used to form, for example, a bottom seal 502, longitudinal seal 504 and top seal 506 (see paragraphs 63 and 64, as filed). This would have been understood by one of skill in the art to mean that there are specific seals associated with each of the heat seal coating regions and not that there is a single seal that could prevent blistering between all of the heat seal coating regions. It is additionally noted, for example, that claims 3 and 13 recite that “the seal is a longitudinal seal.” It is not clear as to how a longitudinal seal would have prevented blistering at all of the plurality of heat seal coating regions, when Applicant’s disclosure discloses that there are heat seal coating regions that would not have been part of the longitudinal seal. Therefore, the above claim limitation is seen to be indefinite.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12 and 14-20 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
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 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France (US 20210086976) in view of GELVA®TS100 Adhesive and Day (WO 9514065) and in further view of Langen (WO 2004087530), Tucker (US 20050184065) and Mazaki (JP H11-091833).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, France discloses a microwave popcorn product formed substantially entirely of non-fluorocarbon material (see at least, the abstract and paragraph 87), comprising:
a flexible, wick resistant two-ply bag structure (see at least, the abstract, “wick resistant”; paragraph 84, last sentence, “two-ply”) defining an expandable bag interior (see at least, paragraph 76, “expansion of bag”), the bag structure having an inner ply of paper and an outer ply of paper (see paragraph 87, “paper”),
the inner ply having a porosity of at least 50,000 Gurley-sec (see paragraph 87),
the outer ply having a porosity of at least 50,000 Gurley-sec (see paragraph 87, “the outer play can have a porosity (Gurley-sec) in the same range as stated above for the inside ply”),
the inner ply and the outer ply joined together at an exterior surface of the inner ply and an interior surface of the outer ply via an adhesive covering substantially all the exterior surface of the inner ply and the interior surface of the outer ply (see paragraph 86: “…a laminating adhesive may be used between the two plies 46, 47 that is continuous and covers the entire area between the plies”), the adhesive also included as a heat seal coating on an interior surface of the inner ply in a plurality of heat seal coating regions with the adhesive covering substantially all of the heat seal coating regions (see at least, figure 3 and 10, item 42; see figure 9, item 85; figure 16, item 92 and paragraph 94, “sealant fields”). It is noted that the term, “heat seal coating regions” is not limiting as to the particular “region” being coated.
France also teaches at paragraph 86 that the adhesive between the two plies can also be used discontinuously such as to provide a grease proof effect, such as at fold lines 68 and 69 (see paragraph 86). This is further supported by paragraph 111 teaching adhesive used as containment seals. Therefore, France is suggesting the use of the same adhesive for the different adhesive applications to the bag.
France also discloses a charge of popcorn including unpopped popcorn kernels and at least one of an oil component or a fat component positioned within the expandable bag interior (see figure 3, item 30 and the abstract, “unpopped popcorn kernels, an oil component and/or a fat component”).
Claims 1 and 11 differ from France in specifically reciting, “the adhesive having a heat seal temperature from about 200°F to about 260°F and a viscosity of less than about 1300 cps at 79°F with a total solids content of about 52.5%” and where “the adhesive” is used for the covering of the exterior of the inner ply or the interior of the outer ply as well as being part of a heat seal coating on an interior surface of the inner ply in a plurality of heat seal coating regions.
However, France is not seen to be limiting as to the particular adhesive that can be used (see paragraph 86 and 117) and also teaches at paragraph 86 that the adhesive between the two plies can also be used discontinuously such as to provide a grease proof effect, such as at fold lines 68 and 69 (see paragraph 86) and therefore is suggesting the use of the same adhesive for the different adhesive applications to the bag.
In this regard, “GELVA®TS 100 Adhesive” teaches an adhesive that can be used for paper products (see page 1, under Description) and for laminating adhesives and heat activated adhesives (see page 1, under “Suggested Applications”) and which adhesive can have a heat seal temperature that is about 200°F (see page 2, “Heat Seal Temperature” which can be 190°F), a solids content of 54.5-57.5 (see page 2, “Total Solids, %”) which can be construed a “about 52.5%” and a viscosity of 1000cps (see page 2, “Viscosity”) at 77°F, which can be construed as reasonably close to the claimed “about 1300 cps at 79°F.” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). The reference also teaches food packaging applications. (see page 3, “Regulatory Status”).
Day teaches adhesive compositions that can be used for adhesion of paper materials (see at least, page 1, lines 8-10) which can be used in high speed production (see page 6, lines 22-31), which can have a heat seal temperature of greater than 50°C (see at least, page 3, lines 23-27, which encompasses 200-260°F), a viscosity of less than 1300 cps at 79°F, such as 1000cps at ambient temperature (see page 4, lines 28-29) or 1100 cps at 26°C (see page 7, lines 15-18) and a solids content of 10-60% (see page 4, lines 33-34, which encompasses “about 52.5%”).
To therefore modify the combination and use known types of adhesives usable for adhering paper based products, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design. That is, France is not limiting as to the particular adhesive and the claims do not specify a particular adhesive, other than the properties of a heat seal temperature, viscosity and total solids content. Therefore, since the prior art is teaching known adhesives usable for bonding paper together, it would have been obvious to have used the known adhesives capable of bonding paper layers together based on conventional expedient for bonding paper layers together, and it would have been obvious to have at least tried the adhesives taught by the prior art for this same purpose.
Claims 1 and 11 differ from France in specifically reciting, “a seal formed in the bag structure to join a portion of the inner ply and the outer ply, the seal having a width of from about 0.30in to about 0.45in and configured to prevent substantial blistering between the adhesive and at least one of the inner ply or the outer ply at the plurality of heat seal coating regions.
That is, the claim newly recites that the seal in the bag structure to join a portion of the inner ply and the outer ply and which has the recited width of 0.3-0.45inches is also preventing substantial blistering between the adhesive and one of the inner ply or the outer ply, at the plurality of heat seal coating regions.
However, France teaches heat seal coating regions to form a top seal (see figure 16, near item 92), a bottom seal (figure 13, item 89) and a longitudinal seal (figure 3 and 10, item 42). As shown in figure 4, item 92 and 89 are heat seal coating regions with the adhesive covering these regions for forming the top and bottom seal and region 84 a heat seal coating region for forming the longitudinal seal 42 (see also paragraphs 115 and 117 which disclose that regions 84, 89 and 92 can function as adhesive sealant fields and where the coating sealant can have strong heat seal properties and flexibility) and are therefore similar to the sealant fields 418, 420 and 422 in Applicant’s figure 4).
Langen (WO 2004087530) teaches an expandable popcorn bag (see the abstract and figure 3C, item 20), which has a longitudinal seal (see figure 3C, item 39) that can have a width of 0.25-0.5 inches for the purpose of providing the desired strength (see paragraph 42), which encompasses the claimed range and where the end points of about 0.25 and about 0.5 inches are seen to also read on the claimed endpoints of “about 0.3” and “about 0.45” inches. That is, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Tucker (US 20050184065) teaches microwavable bags that can be used for where there can be a longitudinal seal with a width of 3/8 of an inch (i.e. 0.375 inches) (see paragraph 32 and figure 3, item 224), which is sufficiently strong to maintain integrity of the pouch under transport and microwave cooking conditions (see paragraph 32). This seal is similar to the longitudinal seal described at paragraphs 43 and 64 of Applicant’s specification as filed.
Mazaki (JP H11-091833) teaches a microwavable bag with two end seals having a width of 10mm (i.e. 0.39inches) and a back seal having a width of 10mm (see paragraph 22 on page 19 of the machine translation, lines 15-17 of the machine translation). Since Mazaki teaches heat sealing of the seals (see at least, the abstract), the reference is teaching a plurality of heat seal coating regions. These heat seal regions would have been similar to France’s end seals and longitudinal seal.
To therefore modify France, who does not provide any specificity with respect to a seal thickness for the top, bottom and longitudinal seals, and to provide a seal that is 0.375 inches, as taught by Tucker and 0.39 inches as taught by Mazaki or within the range of about 0.25in to about 0.5in as taught by Langen, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing longitudinal seal that is sufficiently strong to maintain the integrity of the pouch under transport and microwave cooking conditions. Furthermore, in view of these teachings, the prior art is teaching and suggesting a seal that would also have been configured to prevent blistering, because the combination is teaching and suggesting a seal with the claimed width and for a seal between an interior surface of the inner ply and sealing the inner ply and outer ply together.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, France teaches that the bag structure is substantially free of any fluorocarbon material (see paragraph 87).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination as applied to claim 1 teaches that “the seal” is a longitudinal seal between a top seal and a bottom seal of the bag structure, as taught by Langen, Tucker and Mazaki.
Regarding claims 4-8 and 14-18, France teaches that both the inner and outer ply can have a porosity that is greater than 500000 Gurley-sec (see paragraph 87 which discloses a porosity such as 800000 and where both the inner and outer ply can have the same porosity).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the combination, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, which relies on France (US 20210086976) as the primary reference, and in further view of Lofton (US 20030235685), Nishijima (US 20190218430) or Takebayashi (JP2003186404)
Claims 9 and 19 differ from the combination as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in specifically reciting that the adhesive has a modulus from about 0.5 MPa to about 0.9 MPa.
It is initially noted that the claims do not provide any specificity as to the particular modulus that is being referred to and therefore has been construed to read on any modulus.
In this regard, Lofton teaches heat seal adhesives (see paragraph 1, 51) with a viscosity of 50-5000cps and a solids content of 10-70% (see paragraph 64) and which can have a modulus of approximately 3x10^6 dyne/cm2 (see paragraph 59) which equates to “approximately” 0.3MPa which can be construed to be merely close to “about 0.5MPa” such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Nishijima teaches adhesives that can have a heat seal temperature of 23-100°C (see paragraph 172) which can have a modulus of 0.1-600MPa (see paragraph 21), which modulus can be useful for providing the adhesive as a sheet and which is not fragile while having the desired sealability (see paragraph 12 and 93).
Takebayashi teaches a heat seal adhesive (see paragraph 7 and 9 of the machine translation), heat sealable at 100°C (paragraph 10 of the machine translation), and can have a modulus within the range of 0.5-0.9MPa (see figure 3, which discloses a modulus of just below 1x10^6 Pa, or 1 MPa; see also paragraph 32 which discloses a range of 10^6 to 10^8 Pa) for providing sufficient adhesive strength and holding power without becoming too hard (see paragraph 32 of the machine translation).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have controlled a modulus of the adhesive used by the combination, to be within the range of “about 0.5 MPa to about 0.9 MPa” based on known a modulus for heat seal adhesives with similar seal temperatures, viscosity and solids content and for achieving the requisite degree of durability and adhesive strength without becoming too hard.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the combination, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, which relies on France (US 20210086976) as the primary reference, and in further view of either of Kanagawa (US 20090208759) or Resch (US 20180297325).
Claims 10 and 20 differ from the combination, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in specifically reciting that the adhesive includes an anti- foaming agent.
Kanagawa teaches hot melt adhesives that can include anti-foaming agents (see paragraph 88) which can be used for removing air bubbles that can form in the adhesive (see paragraph 93). Resch teaches laminating paper layers together (see figure 1 and paragraph 23, “paper”) and where when wet laminating the layers together, it has been desirable to prevent bubble formation in the laminate during drying of the laminating layer (see paragraph 26). Resch teaches that adding an antifoaming agent (see paragraph 37) which it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, would also have helped to prevent air bubbles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include an antifoaming agent in the adhesive, for the same purpose of preventing air bubbles in the adhesive, which the prior art has taught are not desirable.
Response to Arguments
On page 15-16 of the response, Applicant urges that the combination of France, GELVA and Day do not disclose or suggest a seal formed in the bag structure to join a portion of the inner ply and the outer ply” and “the seal having a width of from about 0.30 in to about 0.45in and configured to prevent substantial blistering between the adhesive and at least one of the inner ply or the outer ply”. Applicant urges that France’s disclosure that sealed fields that form seals 155 and 156 which can be 0.8-1.4cm are not the seals but rather the width of the sealant fields, and does not disclose that the seals 155 and 156 themselves have a width of 0.8cm.
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive in view of the rejection, as presented in this Office Action, necessitated by the amendment to the claims, which is now specifically indicating that a seal is at the plurality of heat seal coating regions, and not just “any” seal that can join the inner and outer ply together. Therefore, the rejection does not rely on France’s seals 155 and 156. It is additionally noted however, that since paragraph 89 is disclosing that the sealant fields can be 0.8cm wide and can form seals 155 and 155, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the reference is teaching that the seal itself can also be 0.8cm. Nonetheless, this argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
On pages 16-18 of the response Applicant urges that Day is non-analogous art, because the reference is directed to an adhesive composition for use in cigarette manufacture and therefore is not Applicant’s field of endeavor of microwave popcorn products formed entirely of non-fluorocarbon material and is not pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because the instant application is directed to problems associated with an oil-fat component that can leak, wick or undesirably migrate within the package. Applicant also urges that the instant application describes undesirable levels of leakage or wicking of oil/fat material through the paper material at the creased edges can occur and the porosity of the paper can affect leakage or wicking and as such, Day provides no reasonable solution to the problems faced by the inventors or provide any reasonable expectation of success for producing a microwave popcorn package that manages oil/fat wicking.
These arguments have been considered but are not seen to be sufficient for the following reasons: It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is initially noted that while claim 11 recites a microwave popcorn package, the claim does not positively recite a charge of popcorn kernels or any fat or oil component and therefore is only directed to the package without any food component therein. Furthermore, the rejection also relies on Gelva to teach heat sealable adhesives used for food packaging and for bonding paper while providing a flexibility. Regarding Day, it is noted that while the reference teaches and suggests use of an adhesive for cigarette manufacture, the Day is also disclosing that the invention is directed to a starch-based adhesive in general and which adhesive can be “particularly” suitable for cigarette manufacturing (see page 1, lines 2-4). Furthermore, the reference is been relied on to teach adhesives that are used for bonding paper together at a seam and where an adhesive with a heat seal temperature of greater than 50°C, a viscosity of less than 1300cps at ambient temperature and a solids content of 10-60% are properties that are useful in the high speed production of paper based materials while providing good flow and tack properties (see page 6, lines 18-31 and page 7, lines 15-18). This is seen to be reasonably pertinent because on page 2, paragraph 4, Applicant’s specification as filed discusses that the adhesive provides flowability and flexibility characteristics to provide full coverage to a laminate. Applicant’s specification also refers to the adhesive being useful for facilitating commercial throughput of popcorn packages so as to prevent hindering commercial production that conventional adhesives can cause (see page 13, paragraph 36). In view of this Day is seen to be reasonably pertinent because the reference is teaching an adhesive with similar properties to those recited in claims 1 and 11 and which can be useful for adhering paper together at a seam, during high speed production. The reference further teaches and suggests known viscosities and solids content for adhesive successfully used in high speed production of adhering paper materials together, and therefore is seen to be reasonably pertinent. Furthermore, the rejection relies on “Gelva” to teach an adhesive that is a vinyl acetate/acrylate copolymer (similar to paragraph 115 of France), and which adhesive can have a solids content of 54.5%, which can be construed as “about 52.5%” while having a heat seal temperature of 190°F (see page 2, Table 2, “Other Properties”) which can be construed as “about 200°F and a viscosity of 1000-1600cp at 25°C and therefore is seen to overlap with and be merely close to the claimed viscosity of less than 1300cps at 79°F. Gelva further teaches that the adhesive works well on porous substrates such as paper, functions as a heat sealable adhesive as well as a laminating adhesive for paper (see page 1 and 2, under “Description”). Similar to Applicant’s disclosure, Gelva also teaches that the adhesive can form a film that is flexible and suitable for packaging applications. Therefore, together, Gelva teach and suggest an adhesive that provides flexibility and coverage due to the viscosity at ambient temperature and the solids content, while also providing a heat seal temperature similar to the claimed heat seal temperature, and Day teaches that a viscosity and solids content for an adhesive used for bonding paper has been useful for high production processing to seal paper based products. In view of these teachings, and as France already teaches and suggests use of a vinyl acetate/acrylate copolymer as an adhesive, the combination is teaching and suggesting an adhesive that would have been reasonably pertinent and which has properties that facilitate successful use during high speed production processes.
Furthermore, it is noted that France already teaches and suggests wicking resistance while also using inner and outer plies with a similar porosity as claimed (see the abstract and paragraph 87). That is, Applicant’s specification at paragraphs 21 and 23 points to the oil/fat component wicking from the bag especially where fractures in the paper may be present and that low porosity paper provides a mechanical barrier to leakage or wicking of oil/fat; however France teaches using similar porosity paper for this same purpose (the abstract and paragraph 87). Applicant’s specification also indicates that the adhesive is a flexible adhesive with broad coverage (see paragraph 25). Gelva similarly teaches and suggest known properties for adhesive that can provide a degree of flexibility, and Day further teaches that similar properties to an adhesive for paper can be successfully used in high production sealing applications, due to a viscosity and solids content that overlap with or resemble the viscosity and solids claimed. In view of the similarities between Gelva and France and in view of what Day teaches with respect to solids content and viscosity of adhesives for high production, Gelva and Day are seen to be reasonably pertinent and in a similar field of endeavor since they are directed to adhesives used for bonding paper in packaging application and in high production processing.
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 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 at 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