Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/348,177

RETORT POUCH WITH INTERNAL DRAIN SYSTEM

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Jul 06, 2023
Examiner
SANGHERA, SYMREN K
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Rochester Institute Of Technology
OA Round
2 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
79 granted / 145 resolved
-15.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
210
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
37.9%
-2.1% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
37.2%
-2.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 145 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 This office action is in response to the reply filed on 5/28/2025, wherein claims 1, 6, 9, and 14 were amended, claims 2, 8, 10, and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-15 are pending. 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 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. The term “mesh structure positioned within an opening in the outer seal” in claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mesh structure positioned within an opening in the outer seal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As presently claimed, the outer seal has no openings. The word “seal” indicates that this is a closed off portion. The word opening would contradict the term “seal”. Further the claim is drawn towards an unopened pouch (as shown by the presence of a first tear strip). There is no “opening” in the unopened pouch. Further there is no “opening” in the outer “seal”. The outer seal contains the closed edges. Claims 3-7 and 11-15 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 or 9 and are also rejected. The term “configured to close the opening to seal the inner cavity” in claims 6 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “configured to close the opening to seal the inner cavity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The bounds of the inner cavity have changed from the bounds stated in claim 1. In claim 1, the inner cavity was the area within the outer seal which included the drain element. The actual applications resealable seal is located below the drain element, which would mean that the resealable seal does not seal the entire “inner cavity”, it only seals a portion. It also does not seal the same “opening” location as claim 1. The opening remains open. The seal is not on the opening; therefore, the seal does not seal that opening. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by VanHouten (US 20190161262 A1). With respect to claim 1, VanHouten discloses a retort pouch, comprising: an inner cavity (space under 34) located within an outer seal (31, 32, 33, 34) and comprising a volume configured to receive a substance (100) therein; a first tear strip (51) in communication with the outer seal (31, 32, 33, 34) configured to expose the inner cavity; and a drain element (80s) located within and attached to a surface of the inner cavity, the drain element (80s) includes a mesh structure positioned within an opening in the outer seal (see 112b above) to allow a user to drain liquid from the inner cavity while retaining the substance in the inner cavity (abstract ), further comprising a second tear strip (61) configured to remove the drain element from the retort pouch. PNG media_image1.png 670 402 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 658 432 media_image2.png Greyscale With respect to claim 3, VanHouten discloses the retort pouch of claim 1, wherein the drain element (80) is formed from a flexible material. With respect to claim 4, VanHouten discloses the retort pouch of claim 1, wherein the retort pouch is hermetically sealed by the outer seal. (Inherent property of a seal of a food type storage heat seal pouch page 1 [0003]) With respect to claim 5, VanHouten discloses the retort pouch of claim 1, wherein the retort pouch is formed from a microwavable material. (page 1 [0010]) With respect to claim 7, VanHouten discloses the retort pouch of claim 1, wherein the retort pouch is formed of a material suitable to receive a food substance for retorting. (abstract) With respect to claim 9, VanHouten discloses a method of forming a retort pouch, the method comprising: forming an inner cavity (space under 34) located within an outer seal (31, 32, 33, 34) and comprising a volume configured to receive a substance (100) therein; forming a first tear strip (51) in communication with the outer seal (31, 32, 33, 34) configured to expose the inner cavity; and locating a drain element (80) within and attached to a surface of the inner cavity, the drain element includes a mesh structure positioned within an opening in the outer seal to allow a user to drain liquid from the inner cavity while retaining a substance in the inner cavity (abstract) and forming a second tear strip (61) configured to remove the drain element from the retort pouch. With respect to claim 11, VanHouten discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the drain (80) is formed from a flexible material. With respect to claim 12, VanHouten discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the retort pouch is hermetically sealed by the outer seal. (Inherent property of a seal of a food type storage heat seal pouch page 1 [0003]) With respect to claim 13, VanHouten discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the retort pouch is formed from a microwavable material. (page 1 [0010]) With respect to claim 15, VanHouten discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the retort pouch is formed of a material suitable to receive a food substance. (abstract) Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Farstad (US 20190009950 A1). With respect to claim 1, Farstad discloses a retort pouch, comprising: an inner cavity located within an outer seal (24, 26, 28) and comprising a volume configured to receive a substance therein; a first tear strip (72 bottom) in communication with the outer seal configured to expose the inner cavity; and a drain element (50) located within and attached to a surface of the inner cavity, the drain element (50) includes a mesh structure positioned within an opening in the outer seal (see 112b above) to allow a user to drain liquid from the inner cavity while retaining a substance in the inner cavity, further comprising a second tear strip (72 top) configured to remove the drain element from the retort pouch. (see remarks below) PNG media_image3.png 600 384 media_image3.png Greyscale With respect to claim 6, Farstad discloses the retort pouch of claim 1 further comprising a re-sealable seal disposed between the first tear strip and a bottom gusset of the retort pouch configured to close the opening to seal the inner cavity. (page 3 [0028] “may include placement of a zipper seal between the collapsible perforated folded panel 50 and the opening seal 60 to reversibly seal the front wall 12 to the rear wall 14. “… “Similarly, non-limiting examples for resealing the first ends 16 may include utilization of a sealing adhesive in the first end seal 24 which remains sticky and can be resealed, or may include the placement of a zipper seal in the pouch chamber 52 proximal the first end seal 24 to reversibly seal the front wall 12 to the rear wall 14.”) With respect to claim 9, Farstad discloses a method of forming a retort pouch, the method comprising: forming an inner cavity located within an outer seal (24, 26, 28) and comprising a volume configured to receive a substance therein; forming a first tear strip (72 bottom) in communication with the outer seal configured to expose the inner cavity; and locating a drain element (50) within and attached to a surface of the inner cavity, the drain element (50) positioned within an opening in the outer seal to allow a user to drain liquid from the inner cavity while retaining the substance in the inner cavity, further comprising a second tear strip (72 top) configured to remove the drain element from the retort pouch. (see remarks below) With respect to claim 14, Farstad discloses the method of claim 9 further comprising: disposing a re-sealable seal disposed between the first tear strip and a bottom gusset of the retort pouch configured to close the opening to seal the inner cavity. (page 3 [0028] “may include placement of a zipper seal between the collapsible perforated folded panel 50 and the opening seal 60 to reversibly seal the front wall 12 to the rear wall 14. “… “Similarly, non-limiting examples for resealing the first ends 16 may include utilization of a sealing adhesive in the first end seal 24 which remains sticky and can be resealed, or may include the placement of a zipper seal in the pouch chamber 52 proximal the first end seal 24 to reversibly seal the front wall 12 to the rear wall 14.”) Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230286726 A1, US 10597210 B2, US 20190161262 A1, US 20190009950 A1, US 20170001782 A1, US 20140072247 A1, US 20130209628 A1, US 20120224792 A1, US 20070199453 A1, US 3155282 A. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 6 and 14, the re-sealable seal does not re-seal the opening. Therefore, it cannot be stated that it is configured to close the opening. The opening remains open and the seal closes a portion behind it. The seal only selectively closes a portion of the inner cavity. The statement is incorrect and needs correction. Without a supplied definition or material list, the term “flexible material” and “microwaveable material” shall be broadly interpreted within means. Similarly, the statement “suitable to receive a food substance” does not clearly state any structural limitation and shall be broadly viewed. With respect to the amendments regarding “mesh structure”, applicants argues that VanHouten does not disclose of a “mesh structure”. However, the definition of a mesh is "(a piece of) material like a net with spaces in it, made from wire, plastic, or thread" (dictionary.com). The present invention meets this definition. VanHouten also meets this definition, as VanHouten discloses of a plastic with spaces in it (like the present application). The applicant needs to be more specific in defining the inventions mesh structure to overcome this rejection. With respect to the arguments over the Farstad reference, applicant believes the amendments “a second tear strip configured to remove the drain element from the retort pouch” overcomes the prior art. However, the retort pouch is broadly defined as every element of the present invention. In fact, the drain element is part of the retort pouch. So essentially the question is; can the second tear strip of Farstad remove the drain element from a portion of the retort pouch? Yes. To overcome this rejection, the applicant would need to be more specific on which portion of the retort pouch that the second tear strip separates the drain element from. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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. /S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735 /ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 06, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
May 28, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601982
WORKPIECE CONTAINER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594466
DEVICE FOR STORING A GAME BALL UNDER PRESSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589909
STACKING TRAY SYSTEM AND STACKABLE COOKWARE SET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589907
Tray For Food Products
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577019
STORAGE BIN AND LID
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+14.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 145 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month