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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 10, 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5, 10, 11 and 12 recite, “the orientation portions.” For matters of form, it is suggested to amend this limitation to recite, “the one or more orientation relaxation portions.” 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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a breaking portion formed at a position which the one or more orientation relaxation portions faces with a predetermined distance.” (see lines 12-14). It is not clear as to what this limitation is intending to convey. That is, the claim limitation is unclear as to what “faces with a predetermined distance” is modifying, the breaking portion or the one or more orientation relaxation portions. In either instance, it is also not clear as to what the breaking portion or the relaxation portions are facing. Applicant’s specification does not provide further clarity in this regard.
Claims 2-13 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claims 5 and 10 recite the limitation, “wherein the printed layer between the outer layer film and the inner layer film is omitted in the breaking portion and the orientation relaxation portions.” This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear whether the claim requires the printed layer to be present or not. Specifically, claim 1 recites that the printed layer is omitted between the outer layer film and the inner layer film at least in the breaking portion, which therefore also reads on the printed layer being omitted in more than the breaking portion, such as the entirety of the film. In view of this, claims 5 and 10 are not clear as to whether a printed layer is present.
Claim 11 recites, “inner layer films” on lines 24-25, which lacks proper antecedent basis. It is not clear s to which inner layer films are being referred to.
Claim 11 recites the limitation, “bag-like.” This limitation is a relative term which has not been defined by the claims or specification, thus making the scope of what can be construed to be bag “like” unclear.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “the orientation relaxation portions and the breaking portion are arranged at a position facing the opening.”(see lines 7-9). Claim 12 ultimately depends from claim 1, which recites that the breaking portion and the one or more orientation relaxation portions are formed in the outer layer, and there is an inner layer film laminated to the outer layer film. Applicant’s specification at figure 3, item 23 and page 22, lines 22-27 disclose that layer 23 is laminated to outer layer 21 such that it is not clear as to how the orientation relaxation portions and the breaking portion can be facing the opening, when there is a sealing inner layer film positioned under the orientation relaxation portions and the breaking portion.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takeuchi (US 20200239219).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi discloses a film used for a package in which an internal pressure of a container increases when heated in a microwave oven, and steam is released to reduce the internal pressure(paragraph 8, “…in the base film, that is capable of stably releasing the internal pressure that is increased due to the water vapor generated during microwave oven heating”), the film comprising:
an outer layer film molecularly oriented by biaxial stretching (see figure 1 and 2, item 21 and paragraph 36 “biaxially stretched film”);
an inner layer film laminated to the outer layer film (see figure 2, item 23) and capable of being heat-sealed (see paragraph 34; paragraph 35, “sealant film”; paragraph 44, 45);
one or more orientation relaxation portions formed in the outer layer film (see paragraph 35, “a non-oriented portion 21a formed by heating a part to a temperature equal to or higher than the melting point”). It is noted that Applicant’s specification on page 7, lines 20-26 and page 9, lines 6-15 similarly discloses that the orientation relaxation portion is formed by heating the biaxially stretched oriented film to a temperature near or higher than the film’s melting point and therefore, Takeuchi’s non-oriented portion is seen to be equivalent to the claimed orientation relaxation portions.
Takeuchi further discloses a breaking portion formed at a position which the one or more orientation relaxation portions faces with a predetermined distance (see figure 4, item 13; paragraph 34-35), and configured to rupture when the internal pressure of the container increases during microwave heating (see paragraph 34, “a breaking portion 13 that is provided in the film 11 and breaks when an internal pressure increases…”). It is noted that this limitation is unclear in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b. In view of this, Takeuchi is seen to meet the claim limitation because there can be two orientation relaxation portions (see figure 4-6, item 21a) that are distanced from and face each other, and in this distance there is a breaking portion 13 (see also paragraph 48).
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein at least in the breaking portion, a printed layer is omitted between the outer layer film and the inner layer film” the embodiment of figure 1 and 2 does not show any printing layer and therefore meets the claim limitation because the claim limitation encompasses no printing layer being present. Claim 5 is similarly rejected for these same reasons.
Regarding claim 6, Takeuchi discloses a package using the film of claim 1 as at least part of the packaging material (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Takeuchi discloses in figure 18 and paragraph 122 that there is a print layer (24) that is positioned between the outer layer film 21) and the inner layer film (22, 23; see figure 18). At paragraph 122-124, the printing layer is positioned only at regions 21a that are desirably heated with a layer for producing the orientation relaxation portions and therefore, excludes the breaking portion 13.
Regarding claim 13, Takeuchi discloses that the package has contents therein (paragraph 35, “content referred to here contains moisture heated by a microwave oven, such as food…”).
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 3, 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (US 20200239219) in view of Buchkremer (US 20140096486).
Claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 differ from Takeuchi in specifically reciting wherein the printed layer is provided on an outer surface side of the outer layer film (claims 3 and 8); and wherein the printed layer provided on the outer surface side of the outer layer film is located in a region excluding the breaking portion (claims 4 and 9).
It is initially noted that the claims read on any printed layer used for known purposes such as for providing indicia on the exterior of the film and package.
Buchkremer (US 20140096486) teaches coating portions of an outermost surface of a film with ink that can be absorbed by a laser (see paragraph 36; paragraph 19 - “perforation coating is generally applied on an upper film surface”). Buchkremer teaches that such layers are useful because the ink of the print layer can absorb laser energy, such as from infrared laser, which then heats the surface of the film where there is a print layer coating (see paragraph 15, 17) to provide a weaker tensile strength (see paragraph 9). Buchkremer also teaches that the printing layer is selectively positioned on the film such that the printing layer excludes a breaking portion, in light of the printing layer being the weakened layer (see also figure 1, item 4.1, 4.2). This appears to be similar to Applicant’s disclosure at page 9, lines 6-22 which discloses lowering the tensile modulus of the orientation relaxation portions. This also appears similar Takeuchi who also desires to lower the tensile strength of the non-oriented portions (see paragraph 59) using heating sources such as laser and infrared (see paragraph 39-40). Buchkremer also teaches that the printing layer can include advertising and product information (see paragraph 35).
To therefore modify Takeuchi and to position a print layer on an outer side surface of Takeuchi’s outer layer film, as taught by Buchkremer would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing the same function of lowering the tensile strength of the outer film at portions to allow for breaking of the film as well as for providing product information and advertising on Takeuchi’s film.
Furthermore, to position the printed layer in a region excluding the breaking portion would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, because Takeuchi already teaches that the printed layer excludes the breaking portion. Additionally, because Buchkremer teaches that the printing layer provides product information, it would have been obvious to position the printing layer to exclude the breaking portion so as to allow the product information to be visible even after the breaking portion has broken.
Claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (US 20200239219) in view of Mochizuki (US 20100136179) and Berbert (WO 2020131105).
Claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 differ from Takeuchi in specifically reciting wherein the printed layer is provided on an outer surface side of the outer layer film (claims 3 and 8); and wherein the printed layer provided on the outer surface side of the outer layer film is located in a region excluding the breaking portion (claims 4 and 9).
It is initially noted that the claims read on any printed layer used for known purposes such as for providing indicia on the exterior of the film and package.
Mochizuki (US 20100136179) teaches a film and package that comprises a pressure releasing portion (see figure 1 and 4, item 17; paragraph 98) and where the package further comprises printing such as descriptive indicia (see figure 1 and 4, item 40; paragraph 116) by providing a printing layer on the surface of the pouch 10 (paragraph 117). As shown in figure 1 and 4, Mochizuki also teaches that the printing layer is therefore in a region that excludes the venting portion. By teaching that the printing layer is on the surface of the pouch, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Mochizuki is teaching the print layer on the outer surface side of the outer layer film.
Berbert (WO 2020131105) further teaches microwavable films (paragraph 80) that can be ventable (see paragraph 89) and that can comprise a printed layer on the outer surface side of an outer layer film (see paragraph 64 and figure 2, item 70 positioned on the outer surface 12 of outer film layer 20; see paragraph 74).
To therefore modify Takeuchi and to include a print layer on an outer surface side of Takeuchi’s outer layer film and which is in a region that excludes the breaking portion, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of design, for the purpose of providing product information related to the contents.
Claims 2, 5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (US 20200239219) in view of Iguchi (US 20150210463), Mochizuki (US 20100136179) and Berbert (WO 2020131105).
Further regarding claims 2, 5, 7 and 10, if it could have been construed that Takeuchi’s layer 24 as shown in figure 18 and paragraph 120 was not a print layer and that the claim requires the printed layer to be present and omitted in the breaking and orientation relaxation portions, then it is further noted that:
Iguchi (US 20150210463) teaches a venting microwavable package (see paragraph 18) comprising a venting portion (figure 1 and 2, item 40; paragraph 50) and where the film comprises an outer layer film (Figure 6B, item 20) and an inner layer film (see figure 6B, item 30), and between said layer is a printing layer (Figure 6B, item 52) used for providing designs and product information (see paragraph 75) and is positioned in a region that excludes the venting portion (see paragraph 76: “the ink layer 52 is not formed int eh fragile processed portion and around the fragile processed portion. A range where the ink layer 52 is not formed around the fragile processed portion 40 can be appropriately set. For example, it is possible to set a rectangular range including positions away from both sides of the fragile processed portion 40 in the longitudinal direction by 5 mm and positions away from both sides of the fragile processed portion 40 in the width direction by 2.5 mm.”).
Mochizuki (US 20100136179) teaches a film and package that comprises a pressure releasing portion (see figure 1 and 4, item 17; paragraph 98) and where the package further comprises printing such as descriptive indicia (see figure 1 and 4, item 40; paragraph 116) by providing a printing layer on the surface of the pouch 10 (paragraph 117). As shown in figure 1 and 4, Mochizuki also teaches that the printing layer is therefore in a region that excludes the venting portion. Therefore, Mochizuki further evidences that it has been conventional to position a print layer in a region excluding structures directed to venting of the film and package.
Berbert (WO 2020131105) further teaches microwavable films (paragraph 80) that can be ventable (see paragraph 89) and that can comprise between an outer and inner film layer (see paragraph 64 and figure 2, item 70 between layer 20 and 50) and where positioning between the two layers provides an additional degree of protection (see paragraph 74)
To therefore modify Takeuchi and to provide a print layer between Takeuchi’s outer layer film and inner layer film and in a region there-between that excludes Takeuchi’s breaking portion and orientation relaxation portions, as taught by Iguchi, Mochizuki and Berbert would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose providing additional product information on the film and package, based on conventional arrangements for how one can provide such information to a venting microwavable film and package and which arrangement would also have provided a degree of protection to the print layer so as to protect the layer from external damage and prevented deformation of the printed layer as a result of rupture of the breaking portions.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (US 20200239219) in view of Yoshida (JP 2011-173618) or Takahagi (US 20050255200).
Regarding claim 11, Takeuchi teaches that the package comprises an inner film (see figure 2, item 23) and that the structure is a bag like (see figure 1), such as a pillow packaging bag (see paragraph 33). As shown in figure 1, Takeuchi teaches that the orientation relaxation portions and the breaking portion are disposed in a region that constitutes the bag like structure.
The claim limitation of, “wherein inner layer films are heat sealed together” is indefinite for the reasons discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112b. Nonetheless, it is noted that since Takeuchi teaches a bag made using the film of figure 2 and where there are heat seals 12 (see paragraph 47), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that inner film layers would have been required to be heat sealed together.
Nonetheless, Yoshida teaches a microwavable bag (see the abstract) and which bag comprises two sheets used to form the bag (see figure 10, item 1) and which sheets both comprise an inner seal layer (figure 10, item 13 and the abstract, “Sealant film 13). Yoshida teaches that the inner layer films are heat sealed together to form the bag like structure (see figure 10 and 13).
Takahagi also teaches a microwavable bag like structure that is ventable (see the abstract; figure 5, item 17; paragraph 47) and which bag comprises inner film layers (figure 6, item 15; paragraph 68) and which sealant layers would obviously have been required to be heat sealed together to produce the bag like structure as shown in figure 7a-7b (see paragraph 93).
To therefore modify Takeuchi and to seal inner layer films together to produce a bag like structure would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on conventional expedients for how to seal sheets of material together to produce a bag like structure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (US 20200239219) in view of Yasumuro (US 20090145895) and Huffer (US 20140124507).
Regarding claim 12, Takeuchi teaches a package comprising the film as discussed above with respect to claim 6.
Takeuchi also teaches that the film can be a lidding film for a container comprising a container body (figure 15, item 15) including a flange (figure 15, item 16) around an opening and configured to contain contents.
Takeuchi further teaches that the film can also be used as a single layer film 21 (see paragraph 141, “For example, the film 11 may be a single-layer crystalline stretched oriented film 21 in which a breaking portion 13 having a non-oriented portion 21a is formed”). Using such an embodiment, it would have been obvious to one havin ordinary skill in the art that the orientation relaxation portions and the breaking portion would be arranged at a position facing the opening.
However, claim 12 differs from the above discussed Takeuchi embodiment in specifically reciting, that the inner layer film is heat sealed to the flange.
Huffer (US 20140124507) teaches that a known expedient for sealing a film to a flange of a container body is to use a sealing layer positioned only on the flange (see figure 3B, item 42’ and paragraph 31).
Yasumuro (US 20090145895) teaches a ventable film sealed to a flange of a heatable container body (see figure 2, item 2; the abstract). Yasumuro further teaches that the film is sealed to the flange via a peripheral seal part 4 (see paragraph 79) via an inner sealing film 12 (see figure 2, item 12; paragraph 79 and paragraph 81). Because there is a gap in the inner seal film (see figure 2, item 11), Yasumuro is teaching that the venting portion of the film is facing the opening of the container.
Since Takeuchi already teaches that a single layer film and a multilayer film can be used as being sealed to the flange of the container body, to modify Takeuchi and to provide an inner sealing film layer that allows for the film to be sealed only to the container flange, as taught by Huffer or Yasumuro would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on known expedients for how one can apply Takeuchi’s film to the flange of a container.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11731825 in view of Takeuchi (US 20200239219).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6 and 10, patented claims 1 and 5 teach a film and package that comprise a stretched outer layer film that includes one or more orientation relaxation portions and a breaking portion such that the orientation relaxation portions face each other. Claim 1 recites that in at least the breaking portion a printed layer is omitted between the outer layer film and the inner layer film and therefore excludes the presence of a printed layer entirely. In this regard, the patented claim does not teach any printed layer being present and therefore reads on this limitation, as well as claims 5 and 10
Claim 1 differs from the patented claim in specifically reciting that the film and package is capable of being heated in a microwave oven and allowing for steam to be released, the outer layer is biaxially stretched and that there is an inner layer film laminated to the outer lay film and capable of being heat sealed.
Takeuchi discloses a film used for a package in which an internal pressure of a container increases when heated in a microwave oven, and steam is released to reduce the internal pressure(paragraph 8, “…in the base film, that is capable of stably releasing the internal pressure that is increased due to the water vapor generated during microwave oven heating”), the film comprising:
an outer layer film molecularly oriented by biaxial stretching (see figure 1 and 2, item 21 and paragraph 36 “biaxially stretched film”);
an inner layer film laminated to the outer layer film (see figure 2, item 23) and capable of being heat-sealed (see paragraph 34; paragraph 35, “sealant film”; paragraph 44, 45);
one or more orientation relaxation portions formed in the outer layer film (see paragraph 35, “a non-oriented portion 21a formed by heating a part to a temperature equal to or higher than the melting point”). It is noted that Applicant’s specification on page 7, lines 20-26 and page 9, lines 6-15 similarly discloses that the orientation relaxation portion is formed by heating the biaxially stretched oriented film to a temperature near or higher than the film’s melting point and therefore, Takeuchi’s non-oriented portion is seen to be equivalent to the claimed orientation relaxation portions.
Takeuchi further discloses a breaking portion formed at a position which the one or more orientation relaxation portions faces with a predetermined distance (see figure 4, item 13; paragraph 34-35), and configured to rupture when the internal pressure of the container increases during microwave heating (see paragraph 34, “a breaking portion 13 that is provided in the film 11 and breaks when an internal pressure increases…”).
Takeuchi is similar to the patented claim because the reference is also using orientation relaxation portions for a stretched outer film, and which portions are taught to be useful for rupturing to release steam and pressure within a package that is microwaveable and which film and package uses an inner layer film to seal the film into a package.
To therefore modify the patented claim to biaxially stretch the oriented film as taught by Takeuchi, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on conventional expedients for providing the stretched outer film and subsequently relaxing portions of the orientation.
To modify the patented claim and provide an inner layer film laminated to a biaxially stretched outer layer film as taught by Takeuchi, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for facilitating sealing of the patented claim’s film into a package such as a pouch, as taught by Takeuchi.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, in view of Takeuchi the combination discloses in figure 18 and paragraph 122 that there is a print layer (24) that is positioned between the outer layer film 21) and the inner layer film (22, 23; see figure 18). At paragraph 122-124, the printing layer is positioned only at regions 21a that are desirably heated with a layer for producing the orientation relaxation portions and therefore, excludes the breaking portion 13. To therefore modify the patented claim and provide a printing layer between the outer layer film and the inner layer film, as taught by Takeuchi would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on another and conventional expedient for producing the orientation relaxation portions by providing a heat absorbing printing layer.
Regarding claim 6, further in view of Takeuchi, patented claim 1 teaches a package using the film of claim 1 as at least part of a packaging material.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, in view of Takeuchi the combination teaches that the package has contents therein (paragraph 35, “content referred to here contains moisture heated by a microwave oven, such as food…”).
To therefore modify the package of the patented claim to also include contents would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since the purpose of packaging would be to contain some form of contents.
Claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11731825 in view of Takeuchi (US 20200239219) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10 and 13 above, and in further view of Mochizuki (US 20100136179) and Berbert (WO 2020131105).
Claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 differ from the combination as applied to claims 1 and 6 in specifically reciting wherein the printed layer is provided on an outer surface side of the outer layer film (claims 3 and 8); and wherein the printed layer provided on the outer surface side of the outer layer film is located in a region excluding the breaking portion (claims 4 and 9).
It is initially noted that the claims read on any printed layer used for known purposes such as for providing indicia on the exterior of the film and package.
Mochizuki (US 20100136179) teaches a film and package that comprises a pressure releasing portion (see figure 1 and 4, item 17; paragraph 98) and where the package further comprises printing such as descriptive indicia (see figure 1 and 4, item 40; paragraph 116) by providing a printing layer on the surface of the pouch 10 (paragraph 117). As shown in figure 1 and 4, Mochizuki also teaches that the printing layer is therefore in a region that excludes the venting portion. By teaching that the printing layer is on the surface of the pouch, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Mochizuki is teaching the print layer on the outer surface side of the outer layer film.
Berbert (WO 2020131105) further teaches microwavable films (paragraph 80) that can be ventable (see paragraph 89) and that can comprise a printed layer on the outer surface side of an outer layer film (see paragraph 64 and figure 2, item 70 positioned on the outer surface 12 of outer film layer 20; see paragraph 74).
To therefore modify the combination which teaches an outer and inner layer film, and to include a print layer on an outer surface side of the patented claim’s outer layer film and which is in a region that excludes the breaking portion, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of design, for the purpose of providing product information related to contents that can be within the package.
Claims 2, 5, 7 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11731825 in view of Takeuchi (US 20200239219) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10 and 13 above, and in further view of Iguchi (US 20150210463), Mochizuki (US 20100136179) and Berbert (WO 2020131105).
Further regarding claims 2, 5, 7 and 10, if it could have been construed that the print layer as taught by Takeuchi as shown in figure 18 and paragraph 120 was not a print layer and that the claim requires the printed layer to be present and omitted in the breaking and orientation relaxation portions, then it is further noted that:
Iguchi (US 20150210463) teaches a venting microwavable package (see paragraph 18) comprising a venting portion (figure 1 and 2, item 40; paragraph 50) and where the film comprises an outer layer film (Figure 6B, item 20) and an inner layer film (see figure 6B, item 30), and between said layer is a printing layer (Figure 6B, item 52) used for providing designs and product information (see paragraph 75) and is positioned in a region that excludes the venting portion (see paragraph 76: “the ink layer 52 is not formed int eh fragile processed portion and around the fragile processed portion. A range where the ink layer 52 is not formed around the fragile processed portion 40 can be appropriately set. For example, it is possible to set a rectangular range including positions away from both sides of the fragile processed portion 40 in the longitudinal direction by 5 mm and positions away from both sides of the fragile processed portion 40 in the width direction by 2.5 mm.”).
Mochizuki (US 20100136179) teaches a film and package that comprises a pressure releasing portion (see figure 1 and 4, item 17; paragraph 98) and where the package further comprises printing such as descriptive indicia (see figure 1 and 4, item 40; paragraph 116) by providing a printing layer on the surface of the pouch 10 (paragraph 117). As shown in figure 1 and 4, Mochizuki also teaches that the printing layer is therefore in a region that excludes the venting portion. Therefore, Mochizuki further evidences that it has been conventional to position a print layer in a region excluding structures directed to venting of the film and package.
Berbert (WO 2020131105) further teaches microwavable films (paragraph 80) that can be ventable (see paragraph 89) and that can comprise between an outer and inner film layer (see paragraph 64 and figure 2, item 70 between layer 20 and 50) and where positioning between the two layers provides an additional degree of protection (see paragraph 74)
To therefore modify the combiantion and to provide a print layer between the outer layer film and inner layer film and in a region there-between that excludes the patented claim’s breaking portion and orientation relaxation portions, as taught by Iguchi, Mochizuki and Berbert would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose providing additional product information on the film and package, based on conventional arrangements for how one can provide such information to a venting microwavable film and package and which arrangement would also have provided a degree of protection to the print layer so as to protect the layer from external damage and prevented deformation of the printed layer as a result of rupture of the breaking portions.
Claim 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11731825 in view of Takeuchi (US 20200239219) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10 and 13 above, and in further view of Yoshida (JP 2011-173618) or Takahagi (US 20050255200).
Regarding claim 11, in view of Takeuchi the combination teaches that the package comprises an inner film (see figure 2, item 23) and that the structure is a bag like (see figure 1), such as a pillow packaging bag (see paragraph 33). As shown in figure 1, Takeuchi teaches that the orientation relaxation portions and the breaking portion are disposed in a region that constitutes the bag like structure.
The claim limitation of, “wherein inner layer films are heat sealed together” is indefinite for the reasons discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112b. Nonetheless, it is noted that since Takeuchi teaches a bag made using the film of figure 2 and where there are heat seals 12 (see paragraph 47), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that inner film layers would have been required to be heat sealed together.
Nonetheless, Yoshida teaches a microwavable bag (see the abstract) and which bag comprises two sheets used to form the bag (see figure 10, item 1) and which sheets both comprise an inner seal layer (figure 10, item 13 and the abstract, “Sealant film 13). Yoshida teaches that the inner layer films are heat sealed together to form the bag like structure (see figure 10 and 13).
Takahagi also teaches a microwavable bag like structure that is ventable (see the abstract; figure 5, item 17; paragraph 47) and which bag comprises inner film layers (figure 6, item 15; paragraph 68) and which sealant layers would obviously have been required to be heat sealed together to produce the bag like structure as shown in figure 7a-7b (see paragraph 93).
To therefore modify the combination and to seal inner layer films together to produce a bag like structure would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on conventional expedients for how to seal sheets of material together to produce a bag like structure.
Claim 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11731825 in view of Takeuchi (US 20200239219) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10 and 13 above, and in further view of Yasumuro (US 20090145895) and Huffer (US 20140124507).
Regarding claim 12, Takeuchi teaches a package comprising the film as discussed above with respect to claim 6.
Takeuchi also teaches that the film can be a lidding film for a container comprising a container body (figure 15, item 15) including a flange (figure 15, item 16) around an opening and configured to contain contents.
Takeuchi further teaches that the film can also be used as a single layer film 21 (see paragraph 141, “For example, the film 11 may be a single-layer crystalline stretched oriented film 21 in which a breaking portion 13 having a non-oriented portion 21a is formed”). Using such an embodiment, it would have been obvious to one havin ordinary skill in the art that the orientation relaxation portions and the breaking portion would be arranged at a position facing the opening.
However, claim 12 differs from the combination and the above discussed Takeuchi embodiment in specifically reciting, that the inner layer film is heat sealed to the flange.
Huffer (US 20140124507) teaches that a known expedient for sealing a film to a flange of a container body is to use a sealing layer positioned only on the flange (see figure 3B, item 42’ and paragraph 31).
Yasumuro (US 20090145895) teaches a ventable film sealed to a flange of a heatable container body (see figure 2, item 2; the abstract). Yasumuro further teaches that the film is sealed to the flange via a peripheral seal part 4 (see paragraph 79) via an inner sealing film 12 (see figure 2, item 12; paragraph 79 and paragraph 81). Because there is a gap in the inner seal film (see figure 2, item 11), Yasumuro is teaching that the venting portion of the film is facing the opening of the container.
Since the combination in view of Takeuchi already teaches that a single layer film and a multilayer film can be used as being sealed to the flange of the container body, to modify the patented claim in view of Takeuchi and to provide an inner sealing film layer that allows for the film to be sealed only to the container flange, as taught by Huffer or Yasumuro would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on known expedients for how one can apply the film to the flange of a container.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sade (US 20190023479) also teaches providing a printing layer on an exterior of a film (paragraph 75) used to make a microwavable film and package (paragraph 69) and which package can be self-venting (paragraph 88). Sade teaches that the print layer is useful for providing an indicator for the specific temperature of the contents (see paragraph 75).
Spiller (US 20070184977) teaches providing a microwavable film (see the abstract) which provides a print layer of themochromic ink on an exterior surface of the film (see paragraph 24) for providing a user with status information or instructions for manipulating the package as well as entertainment (see the abstract). Spiller also teaches that the film can comprise venting portions (see paragraph 75) and the printed layer can be located in various positions on the film (see figure 6C).
Su (US 20110163105) teaches a film that can relieve pressure during microwave heating (see the abstract; paragraph 9 and figure 2, item 204) and which film has an inner layer film (figure 1, item 102) which is heat sealed to a flange of a container (see figure 6, item 311, 314). Su teaches that the breaking portion is also positioned facing the opening of the container, because as shown in figure 2, the venting portion is a weakened area (paragraph 24) facing the interior of the container.
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
Prosecution Insights