Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanson et al (US 6,060,096). Hanson microwaveable bag having stand-up, wide mouth, features and method comprising a ridged bottom panel (8) having edge portions (12c, 12d, 13c, 13d), wherein the bottom panel (8) includes a layer of paperboard (col. 5, lines 52-67); and a single flexible bag (1) construction having a gusset portion (16), a top portion (19) and a bottom portion (18), wherein the bottom portion (18) includes a microwave interactive material (40, Figure 7), wherein the bottom portion is adhered to the ridged bottom panel (8) to seal the microwave interactive material between the ridged bottom portion and the bottom portion of the flexible bag construction, wherein the gusset portion (16) extends upwardly from the bottom portion and the top portion extends between the gusset portion (Figure 1).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 24, 29 and 32 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanson et al (US 6,060,096), in view of Watkins et al (US 5,044,777). Regarding claims 21 and 29, Hanson microwaveable bag having stand-up, wide mouth, features and method comprising a ridged bottom panel (8) having edge portions (12c, 12d, 13c, 13d), wherein the bottom panel (8) includes a layer of paperboard and a patch having grease resistant paper (col. 5, lines 64-67), wherein a microwave interactive material (40) is sealed between the layer of paperboard and the patch by an adhesive between the paperboard and the patch (col. 5, lines 16-25); a single flexible bag (1) construction having a gusset portion (16) and a top portion (19), wherein the gusset portion (16) has a first end portion (27) and second end portion (28), wherein the first end portion (27) of the gusset portion is sealed to edge portions (12, 13) of the ridge bottom panel (8), wherein the top portion (23, 24) extends between the second end portion of the gusset portion adhered to the edge portions (12, 13) of the ridged bottom panel (8); and a charge (43) of expandable food positioned on the patch over the microwave interactive material (40, Figure 7). However, Hanson does not disclose the singe flexible bag construction includes a plurality of gussets. Watkins discloses a single flexible bag (22, Figure 2) construction includes a plurality of gussets (col. 3, lines 62-62 and col. 4, lines 57-58). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to utilize in Hanson the singe flexible bag construction includes a plurality of gussets as taught by Watkins in order to provide needed or desire to accommodate a particular food item. Regarding claims 24 and 32, Watkins discloses the flexible bag construction (22) is scored to facilitate removal of a portion of the gusset portion (51, 54).
Claims 22-23 and 30-31is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanson et al (US 6,060,096), in view of Watkins et al (US 5,044,777) and further in view of Archibald (US 5,294,765). Regarding claims 22-23 and 30-31, Hanson/Watkins discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention including Hanson further discloses biaxially-oriented polypropylene (col. 6, lines 16-17), but does not disclose the flexible bag construction is fabricated of a polyester film material, wherein the polyester film material comprises biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Archibald discloses a flexible bag construction is fabricated of a polyester film material, wherein the polyester film material comprises biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (col. 3, lines 43-49). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to utilize in Hanson/Watkins a flexible bag construction is fabricated of a polyester film material, wherein the polyester film material comprises biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as taught by Archibald in order to provide a good heating performance reproducibility.
Claims 25-26 and 33-34 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanson et al (US 6,060,096), in view of Watkins et al (US 5,044,777) and further in view of Mast (US 2004/0238535). Regarding claims 25 and 33, Hanson/Watkins discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention except the microwave interactive material comprises a low optical density microwave susceptor. Mast discloses a microwave interactive material comprises a low optical density microwave susceptor (par. 0032). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to utilize in Hanson/Watkins the low optical density microwave susceptor as taught by Mast in order to absorb microwave energy amount which suitable for user application. Regarding claims 26 and 34, Mast discloses the microwave interactive material comprises a patterned microwave susceptor (Figure 8).
Claims 27-28 and 35-36 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanson et al (US 6,060,096), in view of Watkins et al (US 5,044,777) and further in view of Monforton et al (US 2005/0067411). Regarding claims 27-28 and 35-36, Hanson/Watkins discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention except a plurality of vent slots configured to furnish venting of the flexible bag construction, wherein the vent slots are comprised of lines scored in the polyester film that open to vent the flexible bag construction. Monforton discloses a plurality of vent slots (72, abstract) configured to furnish venting of the flexible bag construction, wherein the vent slots (72) are comprised of lines scored in the polyester film that open to vent the flexible bag construction (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to utilize in Hanson/Watkins plurality of vent slots configured to furnish venting of the flexible bag construction, wherein the vent slots are comprised of lines scored in the polyester film that open to vent the flexible bag construction as taught by Monforton in order to vent the bag during oven cooking.
Claims 38-39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanson et al (US 6,060,096), in view of Archibald (US 5,294,765). Regarding claims 38-39, Hanson discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention including Hanson further discloses biaxially-oriented polypropylene (col. 6, lines 16-17), but does not disclose the flexible bag construction is fabricated of a polyester film material, wherein the polyester film material comprises biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Archibald discloses a flexible bag construction is fabricated of a polyester film material, wherein the polyester film material comprises biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (col. 3, lines 43-49). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to utilize in Hanson a flexible bag construction is fabricated of a polyester film material, wherein the polyester film material comprises biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as taught by Archibald in order to provide a good heating performance reproducibility.
Claim 40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanson et al (US 6,060,096), in view of Archibald (US 5,294,765) and further in view of Monforton et al (US 2005/0067411). Regarding claim 40, Hanson/Archibald discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention except a plurality of vent slots configured to furnish venting of the flexible bag construction. Monforton discloses a plurality of vent slots (72, abstract) configured to furnish venting of the flexible bag construction, wherein the vent slots (72) are comprised of lines scored in the polyester film that open to vent the flexible bag construction (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to utilize in Hanson/Archibald plurality of vent slots configured to furnish venting of the flexible bag construction, wherein the vent slots are comprised of lines scored in the polyester film that open to vent the flexible bag construction as taught by Monforton in order to vent the bag during oven cooking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG T VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/QUANG T VAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights