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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (U.S. Patent No. 5,679,278).
Regarding claim 1: Cox discloses a process for forming a microwave popcorn product from substantially entirely non-fluorocarbon material, comprising
providing a first feedstock of paper as a first ply of a wick resistant two-ply bag structure, see for example (Fig. 6; via web 74);
providing a second feedstock of paper as a second ply of the bag structure, (via web 78);
introducing a flexible adhesive to at least one of the first ply or the second ply to coat substantially all of at least one of an exterior surface of the first ply or an interior surface of the second ply with the flexible adhesive (Fig. 6; via applicator 82 dispensing adhesive 48A into the interior surface of second ply 78),
introducing the adhesive as a heat seal coating on an interior surface of the first ply in a plurality heat seal coating regions with the adhesive covering substantially all of the heat seal coating regions (Figs. 17-18; via “heat sealing” and/or “the sealing can be performed by heat and pressure”);
laminating the first ply and the second ply together, see for example (Figs. 6-8; via 74/78 laminated through passing by rollers 86/88);
forming a seal in the bag structure to define an expandable bag interior (Figs. 1-5; via the shown formed sealed expandable bag 10), and configured to prevent substantial blistering between the flexible adhesive and at least one of the inner ply or the outer ply (intended use limitations of the claimed seal forming step); and
introducing a charge of popcorn including unpopped popcorn kernels and at least one of an oil component or a fat component within the expandable bag interior (Figs. 1-2; via load 30 comprising of popcorn kernels 32 and oil 34 charged inside bag 10; “the load 30 is inserted into the folded blank 70…the load inserted from one end 26 or 28”)
Cox does not suggest the claimed first ply having a porosity of at least 50,000 Gurley-sec; the second ply having a porosity of at least 50,000 Gurley-sec;
the flexible 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%; nor
the seal having a width of from about 0.30in to about 0.45in.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cox’s method by having the first ply having a porosity of at least 50,000 Gurley-sec; the second ply having a porosity of at least 50,000 Gurley-sec; the flexible 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 the seal having a width of from about 0.30in to about 0.45in., since it has been heled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2: wherein the bag structure is substantially free of any fluorocarbon material (Fig. 1; via bag 10; “fluorocarbon” not mentioned in the patent).
Regarding claim 3: wherein forming a seal in the bag structure to define an expandable bag interior includes forming a longitudinal seal in the bag structure along a longitudinal region of overlapped portions of the bag structure, see for example (Figs. 1-2; via formation of longitudinal seal 24).
Regarding claim 4: further comprising a top seal and a bottom seal in the bag structure, wherein the longitudinal seal extends between the top seal and the bottom seal (Fig. 1; via sealed both ends; “Each end 26, 28 is then sealed”).
Regarding claim 8: Cox does not suggest that each of the inner ply and the outer ply has a porosity of at least 100,000 Gurley-sec. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cox’s method by having the inner ply and the outer ply has a porosity of at least 100,000 Gurley-sec, since it has been heled that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 9: Cox does not suggest that the adhesive has a modulus from about 0.5 MPa to about 0.9 MPa. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cox’s method by having the adhesive has a modulus from about 0.5 MPa to about 0.9 MPa., since it has been heled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10: wherein introducing a flexible adhesive to at least one of the first ply or the second ply includes introducing at least one of the first ply or the second ply to a flexible adhesive stored in an adhesive bath to coat substantially all of at least one of the exterior surface of the first ply or the interior surface of the second ply with the flexible adhesive, see for example (Fig. 6; via introducing web 78 to stored adhesive path 48A).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (U.S. Patent No. 5,679,278) in view of Mizuguchi (JPH 082 308 37).
Regarding claim 5: Cox does not disclose that the longitudinal seal is formed using a heat seal jaw having a body portion and a seal portion tapering inward from the body portion, the seal portion interfacing with the bag structure to form the longitudinal seal. However, Mizuguchi discloses similar method with the use of heat seal jaw having a body portion and a seal portion tapering inward from the body portion, the seal portion interfacing with the bag structure to form the longitudinal seal, see for example (Figs. 4, 8, and 9; via body 25 & tapering seal portions 99/100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cox’s method by using a heat seal jaw having a body portion and a seal portion tapering inward from the body portion, the seal portion interfacing with the bag structure to form the longitudinal seal, as suggested by Mizuguchi, in order to improve the sealing step and achieve more accurate sealing lines.
Regarding claim 6: Mizuguchi discloses that the heat seal jaw includes at least one taper (via 99 and/or 100). Mizuguchi does not suggest that the taper is from about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees from a horizontal extending from a first side to a second side of the heat seal jaw to form the seal portion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cox in view of Mizuguchi’s method by having the taper to be about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees from a horizontal extending from a first side to a second side of the heat seal jaw to form the seal portion, since it has been heled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7: Mizuguchi discloses that the heat seal jaw includes the taper on each of the first side and the second side to form the seal portion (via tapers 99/100 on each side of the jaw).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (U.S. Patent No. 5,679,278) in view of Markland et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0125231).
Regarding claim 11: Cox does not disclose that one of the flexible adhesives or the adhesive bath includes an anti-foaming agent. However, Markland discloses similar popcorn bags made of antifoaming agent, see for example (paragraph 0014; “the coating composition further comprises antifoam. Antifoaming agents”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cox’s adhesive step, by using an antifoaming agent, as suggested by Markland, in order to prevent foaming promoted in the coating and/or adhesive (paragraph 0014).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant continue by the current filed arguments on 01/30/2026 to make similar if not the same arguments to the once filed on 07/24/2025, followed by the Final Office action on 10/01/2025. Therefore, similar Office response to those arguments made on 10/01/2025 are indicated below.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no evidence as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the applied art of Cox ‘278 as disclosing the claimed general conditions of claim 1 of having the first and second plies with a porosity of at least 50,000 Gurley-sec, flexible adhesive with seal temperature from about 200 to 260 degrees F., and a viscosity of less than about 1300 cps at 79 degrees F with a total solids content of about 52.5%.
The Office believes that the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the applied art of ‘278 is using and referring to a similar if not the same process for forming a microwaveable container for popcorn (popcorn packages) as the one suggested by the claimed language. It is noted that since both the claimed invention and applied art ‘278 are referring to the same process leading to formation of the same final made products (microwavable popcorn package), it would make sense and be obvious to those skilled in the art to have consider modifying the general conditions of the used materials of ‘278, by another similar to the claimed ones (a matter of discovering the optimum or workable ranges, which is a matter only involves routine skill in the art), in order to improve the quality of the final made package.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights