DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response and amendments filed 21 September 2026.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the complementary joining structures (claim 24) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 30 is 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.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites, “wherein the tarp exhibits a 50 cc Gurley densometer time of less than 15 seconds”. While this provides a volume of air (50 cc) to be permeated in 15 seconds, it does not provide the square surface area that such an airflow occurs across. As such, the units provided are unclear. The Office will interpret as best understood.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10-14, 16-17, 22-23, 25, 27-28 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryerson et al. (CA 3 037 914 A1) hereinafter referred to as Ryerson in view of Drews et al. (US 2020/0165761 A1) hereinafter referred to as Drews in view of Song et al. (US 10,273,612 B2) hereinafter referred to as Song in view of Invasive Species Council of BC (“How to tarp your green waste load to prevent spreading Japanese beetle”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNgeIKA6CY ; Published 16 October 2020) hereinafter referred to as NPL ’01 in view of Jordan, Jr. (US Patent 10,086,995 B2) hereinafter referred to as Jordan in view of Nunn (US 2011/0094691 A1) in view of Mao et al. (Textiles and Fashion, Chapter 13, Published 2014, Woodhead Publishing, ISBN 978-1-84569-931-4) hereinafter referred to as Mao.
Regarding claim 10, Ryerson discloses a method of using a compostable (Abstract – “The compostable Tie-up Garden Waste Bag”; Description – paragraph 1, “The Compostable Tie-up Garden Waste Bag will be made of certified compostable material which meets the ASTM D6400 standard as certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI)”; Claim 2), air-transmissive (Description, paragraph 4 “allow for water drainage because of perforations strategically placed in the base of the bag”; Such perforations are deemed to also allow for air transmission), reversible (fig. 1; Tarp can be placed so that either side is contacting the debris), unsupported (fig. 3) tarp configured for use as a container (fig. 5; Abstract, paragraph 1; Description, paragraph 4) for transporting compostable material (Abstract, paragraph 1), the tarp comprising a compostable (Abstract, paragraph 1; Description, paragraph 1; Claim 2), air-transmissive (Description, paragraph 4) web (fig. 1), and wherein the tarp is at least generally square in shape and is from 16 square feet to 21.7 square feet in total area (fig. 1; Description, paragraph 2 – “48 inches to 56 inches square”, i.e. 48”x48” to 56”x56”) when unfolded, the method comprising:
placing the tarp on a generally horizontal surface in an unfolded, unsupported condition (fig. 2; Abstract, paragraph 1; Claim 4);
depositing compostable material on an upper major surface of the tarp so that the tarp is loaded with the compostable material (fig. 3; Abstract, paragraph 1; Claim 4);
bringing first and second diagonally-opposing corners of the tarp together, gathering the first and second diagonally-opposing corners, and tying the first and second gathered, diagonally-opposing corners to each other to form a knot that provides a first integral carrying handle for the loaded tarp (figs. 4B-5; Abstract, paragraph 1; Description, paragraph 4; Claim 4).
Ryerson discloses a method of using a compostable, air-transmissive, reversible, unsupported tarp configured for use as a container for transporting compostable material, the tarp comprising a compostable, air-transmissive web, but fails to disclose the tarp comprises a spunbonded nonwoven fibrous web comprising meltspun fibers that are autogenously melt-bonded and that are additionally melt-bonded by point-bonds that occupy from at least 8 % to at most 24 % of a total area of the nonwoven fibrous web, the nonwoven fibrous web having unfinished edges in which edge areas of the tarp are unhemmed and have not been subjected to any densification or to any other post-processing to reinforce the edges, such that the edge areas of the tarp have the same composition and fiber arrangement as interior portions of the tarp and exhibiting a basis weight of from 20 grams per square meter to 100 grams per square meter.
However, Drews teaches a method for using a web for use as a container for transporting compostable material (paragraphs 0020, 0094) comprising a compostable (paragraphs 0005, 0060-0063, 0065-0066; Abstract), air-transmissive (paragraph 0033 – “hot air is forced through the web”), spunbonded nonwoven fibrous (Abstract; paragraphs 0008, 0020, 0029, 0032-0033, 0035-0036; fig. 1) web comprising meltspun fibers (paragraphs 0025-0026, 0078, 0082, 0086, 0095; i.e. “meltblown” is understood to be comparable to “meltspun”) and that are additionally melt-bonded by point-bonds (paragraphs 0029-0030, 0033, 0036, 0087-0088) that occupy from at least 8 % to at most 24 % of a total area of the nonwoven fibrous web (paragraph 0088 – Examples of ranges of the area occupied by the point bonds includes, 5-30% and any value in-between, including 10-25% and 18%), the nonwoven fibrous web having unfinished edges (figs. 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D; There is no edge pattern or finishing provided to the webs) in which edge areas of the tarp are unhemmed and have not been subjected to any densification or to any other post-processing to reinforce the edges, such that the edge areas of the tarp have the same composition and fiber arrangement as interior portions of the tarp (Figs. 4A-D; The edges of Drews are deemed to be “unfinished” as defined by the claim and set forward in the Applicant’s specification, because the edges are shown as having “the same composition and fiber arrangement as interior portions of the tarp”. There is no change in pattern associated with the edge area of the tarp of Drews. It is in this same manner that the Applicant’s invention has point bonds (13) at the edge of their tarp (1; see fig. 1), but the Applicant does not deem these bonds to constitute “finishing” because those same patterns of bonds are found on the interior of the tarp. As such, Drews is deemed to teach this “unfinished edge” limitation when viewed in light of the Applicant’s own disclosure) and exhibiting a basis weight of from 20 grams per square meter to 100 grams per square meter (paragraph 0053 - spunbond fabrics having a basis weight from about 8 g/m2 to about 70 g/m2”; paragraph 0084; paragraph 0095 – “7 g/m2 to about 150 g/m2”; paragraph 0097 – “the spunbond webs may have higher basis weight ranges that may range from about 20 to 80 g/m2.”).
Given the teachings of Drew (paragraph 0003, 0005), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the compostable, air-transmissive web of Ryerson to be comprised of the spunbonded nonwoven fibrous web comprising meltspun fibers that are additionally melt-bonded by point-bonds that occupy from at least 8 % to at most 24 % of a total area of the nonwoven fibrous web, the nonwoven fibrous web having unfinished edges in which edge areas of the tarp are unhemmed and have not been subjected to any densification or to any other post-processing to reinforce the edges, such that the edge areas of the tarp have the same composition and fiber arrangement as interior portions of the tarp and exhibiting a basis weight of from 20 grams per square meter to 100 grams per square meter of Drew. Both Ryerson and Drew are concerned with a web material that is compostable for better environmental outcomes, and Drew teaches how such a compostable material can be produced in-mass, cost-effectively and to specified standards that are in keeping with the intended purpose of both Ryerson and Drew (i.e. for use in packaging so as to transport compostable material). Not having the edges finished helps reduce cost of manufacturing and the omission of an unnecessary step when the remaining steps would apparently perform the same intended function involves only routine skill in the art.
Ryerson as modified by Drew teaches a process for bonding (Drew - paragraphs 0032, 0040, 0045) the web and additionally the web being melt-bonded by point bonds, but fails to disclose that this process provides for the web being autogenously melt-bonded over an entirety of an area of the nonwoven fibrous web, the autogenous melt-bonding being melt-bonding of the meltspun fibers to each other at points of contact therebetween performed with application of solid contact pressure onto the nonwoven fibrous web.
However, Song teaches a spunbonded nonwoven fibrous web (col. 2 lines 33-44) comprising meltspun fibers that are autogenously melt-bonded (col. 2 line 64 – col. 3 line 3; col. 8 line 18 – col. 9 line 13) over an entirety of an area of the nonwoven fibrous web, the autogenous melt-bonding being melt-bonding of the meltspun fibers to each other at points of contact therebetween performed with application of solid contact pressure onto the nonwoven fibrous web (col. 8 lines 34-35), the nonwoven fibrous web having unfinished edges in which edge areas of the tarp are unhemmed and have not been subjected to any densification or to any other post-processing to reinforce the edges, such that the edge areas of the tarp have the same composition and fiber arrangement as interior portions of the tarp (col. 7 line 59 – col. 8 line 29).
Given the teachings of Song, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the method of Ryerson as modified by Drew to modify the bonding of Drew to having the meltspun fibers that are autogenously melt-bonded of Song. Both are concerned with the problem of creating the spunbonded nonwoven fibrous webs. Song teaches that the formation of the web can be accomplished by having meltspun fibers that are autogenously melt-bonded. Having the fibers be autogenously melt-bonded provides for reinforcing the overall structure of the fibrous mat to ensure it doesn’t come apart.
The Office deems Ryerson in view of Drew and Song to disclose the web having “unfinished edges” (See Drew, figs. 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D; Song, col. 7 line 59 – col. 8 line 29). Wherein the Applicant may argue such is not explicitly disclosed, the Office previously alternatively took official notice in the Office Action of 29 December 2025 that a nonwoven, fibrous web having unfinished edges would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing since it would merely involve the absence of a step (i.e. not finishing the edges). Such would reduce cost of production and thus provide for a more economical product. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C) in their response to that Office Action.
Ryerson teaches wherein the tarp is generally square in shape, but does not disclose wherein it is square in shape and exhibits four major edges present as two pairs of opposing, generally parallel edges, each major edge extending between two neighboring corners of the tarp in an overall manner that is generally linear and not interrupted by any substantial outwardly-extending protrusions or inwardly-extending protrusions or inwardly extending notches along a length of the major edge and comprises a web-usage efficiency factor of at least 95%.
However, NPL ’01 teaches a method of using an unsupported tarp as a container for transporting compostable material wherein the tarp is square in shape and exhibits four major edges present as two pairs of opposing, generally parallel edges, each major edge extending between two neighboring corners of the tarp in an overall manner that is generally linear and not interrupted by any substantial outwardly-extending protrusions or inwardly-extending protrusions or inwardly extending notches along a length of the major edge (Video – 1:49-2:12 – Tarp has a square shape which meets all the aforementioned claim limitations) and comprises a web-usage efficiency factor of at least 95% (According to the Applicant’s definition of what a web-usage efficiency factor, see Specification p. 14 lines 28-30, a square shape tarp, as depicted in Video – 1:49-2:12 of NPL ’01 would read on this limitation. It is noted that in the video demonstrating the method, the entire square tarp is utilized in the wrapping process; see screen shot of video at 2:02 below) and bringing first and second diagonally-opposing corners, and tying the first and second gathered, diagonally-opposing corners to each other to form a knot that provides a first integral carrying handle for the loaded tarp (Video – 1:49-2:27; Transcript – 1:55-2:27).
PNG
media_image1.png
828
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given the teachings of NPL ‘01, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Ryerson to have a square shape and opposite tying corners as in NPL ‘01. Doing so would preserve the capability of tying opposite corners together while making the tarp easier to manufacture by having fewer cut lines and a simplified shape.
Ryerson as modified by NPL ’01 above discloses a method wherein the tarp is square in shape (NPL ’01 - Video – 1:49-2:12) and is from 16 square feet to 21.7 square feet in total area (Ryerson - fig. 1; Description, paragraph 2 – “48 inches to 56 inches square”, i.e. 48”x48” to 56”x56”) when unfolded, but fails to disclose the tarp is from 25 square feet to 45 square feet in total area when unfolded.
However, Jordan teaches a method using a tarp (10) from 25 square feet to 45 square feet in total area when unfolded (col. 3 lines 57-64 – “ideal dimensions can range from 1 ft-10 ft in width by 1 ft-10 ft in length”; This includes areas from 1 to 100 square feet).
Given the teachings of Jordan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the total area of the square tarp of Ryerson fall within the claimed range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed that discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill. Both Ryerson as modified by NPL ‘01 and Jordan are concerned with the problem of collecting yard waste. Having a total area in the claimed range would allow the invention of Ryerson hold more material while still not being too unwieldy.
Ryerson as modified by Drews discloses a method of using a compostable (Ryerson - Abstract – “The compostable Tie-up Garden Waste Bag”; Description – paragraph 1, “The Compostable Tie-up Garden Waste Bag will be made of certified compostable material which meets the ASTM D6400 standard as certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI)”; Claim 2), air-transmissive (Ryerson - Description, paragraph 4 “allow for water drainage because of perforations strategically placed in the base of the bag”; Such perforations are deemed to also allow for air transmission), reversible (Ryerson - fig. 1; Tarp can be placed so that either side is contacting the debris), unsupported (Ryerson - fig. 3) tarp configured use as a container for transporting compostable material (Ryerson - Abstract, paragraph 1; Drews - paragraphs 0020, 0094) comprising a compostable (Ryerson - Abstract, paragraph 1; Description, paragraph 1; Claim 2; Drews - paragraphs 0005, 0060-0063, 0065-0066; Abstract), air-transmissive (Ryerson - Description, paragraph 4; Drews - paragraph 0033 – “hot air is forced through the web”), spunbonded nonwoven fibrous (Drews - Abstract; paragraphs 0008, 0020, 0029, 0032-0033, 0035-0036; fig. 1) web comprising meltspun fibers (Drews - paragraphs 0025-0026, 0078, 0082, 0086, 0095; i.e. “meltblown” is understood to be comparable to “meltspun”), but does not disclose wherein the web exhibits a loft of at least 75%.
However, Nunn teaches using a web for use as a tarp (paragraph 0112) made from a similar nonwoven (paragraph 0110) fibrous web comprising spunbonded fibers (paragraph 0110) wherein the web exhibits a high loft (paragraph 0110).
Given the teachings of Nunn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the web of Ryerson as modified by Drews to exhibit a high loft. Doing so provides various benefits including allowing for the tarp to be lightweight and allowing for faster drying in the event that it becomes wet.
Ryerson as modified by Drews and Nunn discloses wherein the web exhibits a high loft, but does not specifically denote a loft of at least 75%.
However, Mao teaches that high-loft, nonwoven fabrics typically exhibit a loft of at least 75% (pg. 327, paragraph 2 – “Thus, the open porosity (or effective porosity) is defined as the ratio of accessible pore volume to total fabric volume, which is a component part of the total fabric porosity. The majority of nonwoven fabrics have porosities >50% and usually above 80%... High-loft nonwoven fabrics usually have a low bulk density because they have more pore space than a heavily compacted nonwoven fabric does; the porosity of high-loft nonwovens can reach >98%.”).
Given the teachings of Mao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have considered a loft of at least 75% for the high loft web of Ryerson as modified by Drews and Nunn. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In this case, Ryerson as modified by Drews and Nunn already discloses a tarp made of a non-woven web exhibiting high loft. As taught by Mao, it was generally understood in the art that a high loft, nonwoven fabric would exhibit a loft of at least 75%. Providing for a high loft material allows for the tarp to be lightweight and allows for faster drying in the event that it becomes wet and Mao shows a typical range of such types of fabric that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered for these purposes.
Regarding claim 11, Ryerson discloses carrying the loaded tarp by way of the first integral carrying handle, to a pick-up location (Abstract, paragraph 1; Description, paragraph 4; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Ryerson in view of NPL ‘01 discloses wherein the tying of the first and second gathered diagonally-opposing corners to each other comprises tying at least a single overhand knot in the first and second gathered, diagonally-opposing corners (Ryerson - figs. 4b and 5; NPL ’01 - Video – 1:49-2:27; Transcript – 1:55-2:27).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that at least a single overhand knot is not clearly disclosed by Ryerson, the Office previously alternatively took official notice in the Office Action of 29 December 2025 that a single overhand knot was a notoriously well-known knot (i.e. the beginning of a shoelace knot) prior to the time of effective filing used in a variety of applications, many of which include tying one sheet or element of fabric to another which would be applicable to the invention of Ryerson and obvious for those reasons. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Regarding claim 13, Ryerson in view of NPL ’01 discloses wherein the tying of the first and second gathered, diagonally-opposing corners together comprises tying a double overhand knot in the first and second gathered, diagonally-opposing corners (Ryerson - figs. 4b and 5; NPL ’01 - Video – 1:49-2:27; Transcript – 1:55-2:27).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that at least a double overhand knot is not clearly disclosed by Ryerson, the Office previously alternatively took official notice in the Office Action of 29 December 2025 that a double overhand knot was a notoriously well-known knot prior to the time of effective filing used in a variety of applications, many of which include tying one sheet or element of fabric to another which would be applicable to the invention of Ryerson and obvious for those reasons. A double overhand knot is generally harder to untie (i.e. more secure) than a single overhand knot. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Regarding claim 14, Ryerson in view of NPL ’01 discloses wherein the method further comprises bringing third and fourth diagonally-opposing corners of the tarp together (Ryerson - fig. 4b; NPL 01 - Video – 1:49-2:27; Transcript – 1:55-2:27), gathering the third and fourth corners, and tying the third and fourth gathered, diagonally-opposing corners (Ryerson - Abstract, paragraph 1; NPL ’01 Video – 1:49-2:27; Transcript – 1:55-2:27) to each other (Ryerson - fig. 4b) to form a second knot that provides a second integral carrying handle for the loaded tarp (Ryerson - fig. 5; NPL ’01 - Video – 1:49-2:27; Transcript – 1:55-2:27).
Regarding claim 16, Ryerson as modified by Drews, Song and Jordan discloses tied-together corners of the nonwoven fibrous web (see Rejection of claim 1), but fails to disclose the method further comprising: with the tarp at a pick-up location and loaded with compostable material, grasping the tarp by way of a first integral carrying handle comprising the first and second diagonally-opposing, gathered, tied-together corners of the nonwoven fibrous web, and depositing the loaded tarp into a collection vehicle; transporting the loaded tarp to a composting facility; and, unloading the loaded tarp from the collection vehicle and introducing the loaded tarp into a composting batch at the composting facility.
However, NPL ’01 teaches with the tarp at a pick-up location and loaded with compostable material (Transcript – 1:30; Video - 1:30-1:45), grasping the tarp by way of a first integral carrying handle (Video – 1:30-1:45; Video – 2:25-2:30) comprising the first and second diagonally-opposing, gathered, tied-together corners of the web (Transcript and Video – 1:40-2:27), and depositing the loaded tarp into a collection vehicle (Transcript – 1:30 and 2:27; Video – 1:30-1:45); transporting the loaded tarp to a composting facility (Transcript – 1:13 “temporary transfer station”; Transcript – 2:27 “Now your bundle of green waste is safe and secure to pile into the truck and travel to the temporary station or your next job. When unloading at the transfer station”; Video – 2:39, Bundled compost material can be seen on the truck and is being deposited into the transfer station); and, unloading the loaded tarp from the collection vehicle and introducing the loaded tarp into a composting batch at the composting facility (Transcript – 1:13 and 2:27; Video – 2:39, Bundled compost material can be seen on the truck and is being deposited into the transfer station).
Given the teachings of NPL ’01, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Ryerson as modified by Drews, Song and Jordan to have the nonwoven fibrous compost filled tarp, loaded onto a truck and taken to a compost facility (transfer station). Doing so would remove the refuse from the location it was no longer wanted and put at a location where the refuse could be properly disposed of.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that a compost facility is not explicitly disclosed, the Office previously alternatively took official notice in the Office Action of 29 December 2025 that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the transfer station be part of a composting facility. Transfer stations are notoriously well-known for being used in all manner of refuse and disposal facilities to act as a waypoint for such material to be gathered until such time as it can be further processed. Compost facilities where a well-known type of such disposal facilities and would have been an obvious choice when disposing of compostable waste as the waste in Ryerson and NPL ’01. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Regarding claim 17, Ryerson as modified by Drew discloses the tarp further comprises a second integral carrying handle comprising third and fourth diagonally-opposing, gathered, tied-together corners (Ryerson - fig. 4b; Abstract, paragraph 1) of the nonwoven fibrous web (Drew - Abstract; paragraphs 0008, 0020, 0029, 0032-0033, 0035-0036; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Ryerson as modified by Drews discloses wherein the point-bonds occupy from 15% to 20% of the total area of the nonwoven fibrous web (Drews - paragraph 0088 – Examples of ranges of the area occupied by the point bonds includes, 5-30% and any value in-between, including 10-25% and 18%).
Regarding claim 23, Ryerson as modified by NPL ’01 and Jordan discloses wherein the tarp is at least substantially square in shape (Ryerson – fig. 1; Description, paragraph 2 – “48 inches to 56 inches square”, i.e. 48”x48” to 56”x56”; NPL ’01 – Video 1:49-2:02) and is from 32 square feet to 40 square feet in total area (Jordan - col. 3 lines 57-64 – “ideal dimensions can range from 1 ft-10 ft in width by 1 ft-10 ft in length”; This includes areas from 1 to 100 square feet).
Regarding claim 25, Ryerson as modified by Drews discloses wherein the tarp consists essentially of the nonwoven fibrous web (Drews - paragraphs 0058, 0076, 0111, 0113, 0115).
Regarding claim 27, Ryerson as modified by Drews discloses wherein the nonwoven fibrous web comprises meltspun fibers comprised of materials chosen from the group consisting of polylactide (Drews – paragraph 0005), polybutylene succinate (Drews – paragraph 0066), polybutylene adipate terephthalate (Drews – paragraph 0066), polycaprolactone (Drews – paragraph 0065), polyhydroxyalkanoate (Drews – paragraph 0065), poly-3-hydroxybutyrate (Drews – paragraph 0065), polyhydroxyvalerate (Drews – paragraph 0065), polyhydroxyhexanoate (Drews – paragraph 0065), zcin-based materials, cellulosic esters (Drews – paragraph 0060), and mixtures, blends, and copolymers thereof.
Regarding claim 28, Ryerson as modified by Drews discloses wherein the nonwoven fibrous web consists essentially of polylactide fibers (paragraphs 0005, 0058; Abstract).
Regarding claim 31, Ryerson as modified by Drews and Song discloses wherein the tarp (Drews – paragraphs 0020, 0094) is a single layer (Drews – 0023, 0058, 0076, figs. 2a-2c; Song – col. 2 lines 36-38, col. 10 lines 55-58), the single layer being the nonwoven fibrous web, the tarp comprising no netting, scrim, or reinforcing layer in addition to the single layer (Drews – 0023, 0058, 0076, figs. 2a-2c; Song – col. 2 lines 36-38, col. 10 lines 55-58; Drews and Song each disclose multi and single layer embodiments for nonwoven PLA material).
Given the teachings of Drews and Song it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective fling have the nonwoven tarp of Ryerson as modified by Drews and Song be made of a single layer. Doing so would simply design and reduce cost by not introducing other materials.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryerson (CA 3 037 914 A1) in view of Drews (US 2020/0165761 A1) in view of Song (US 10,273,612 B2) in view of NPL ’01 (“How to tarp your green waste load to prevent spreading Japanese beetle”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNgeIKA6CY ; Published 16 October 2020) in view of Jordan (US Patent 10,086,995 B2) in view of Nunn (US 2011/0094691 A1) in view of Mao (Textiles and Fashion, Chapter 13, Published 2014, Woodhead Publishing, ISBN 978-1-84569-931-4) in view of Greenland (US Patent 5,722,220).
Regarding claim 15, Ryerson in view of NPL ’01 discloses wherein the method further comprises bringing third and fourth diagonally-opposing corners of the tarp together (Ryerson - fig. 4b; NPL ’01 - Video – 1:49-2:27; Transcript – 1:55-2:27), gathering the third and fourth corners, and tying the third and fourth gathered, diagonally-opposing corners (Ryerson - Abstract, paragraph 1; NPL ’01 - Video – 1:49-2:27; Transcript – 1:55-2:27) to each other (Ryerson - fig. 4b) to form a second knot that provides a second integral carrying handle for the loaded tarp (Ryerson - fig. 5; NPL ’01 - Video – 1:49-2:27; Transcript – 1:55-2:27), but fails to disclose wherein the tying of the third and fourth gathered, diagonally-opposing corners to each other to form the second integral carrying handle for the loaded tarp comprises tying the third and fourth gathered, diagonally-opposing corners to the first integral carrying handle formed by the tying to each other of the first and second gathered, diagonally-opposing corners.
However, Greenland teaches wherein the tying of the third (14) and fourth (18) gathered, diagonally-opposing corners to each other to form the second integral carrying handle (fig. 3) for the loaded tarp comprises tying the third (14) and fourth (18) gathered, diagonally-opposing corners to (fig. 4; Abstract; claim 4) the first integral carrying handle (12, 16; fig. 2) formed by the tying to each other of the first (12) and second (16) gathered, diagonally-opposing corners.
Given the teachings of Greenland, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to tie the first and second handles of Ryerson to each other as taught by Greenland. Doing so would more securely close the sheet into a bag to hold the compostable material.
Claim(s) 19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryerson (CA 3 037 914 A1) in view of Drews (US 2020/0165761 A1) in view of Song (US 10,273,612 B2) in view of NPL ’01 (“How to tarp your green waste load to prevent spreading Japanese beetle”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNgeIKA6CY ; Published 16 October 2020) in view of Jordan (US Patent 10,086,995 B2) in view of Nunn (US 2011/0094691 A1) in view of Mao (Textiles and Fashion, Chapter 13, Published 2014, Woodhead Publishing, ISBN 978-1-84569-931-4) in view of US Safety Products (“Tractron Triage Tarp Kit”; https://www.ussafetyproducts.com/Tactron-Triage-Tarp-Kit_p_11735.html ; Retrieved from 18 May 2022) hereinafter referred to as NPL ‘02.
Regarding claim 19, Ryerson discloses the method comprising: unfolding the tarp and placing the tarp on a generally horizontal surface in an unfolded, unsupported condition (fig. 2; Abstract, paragraph 1; Claim 4); depositing compostable material on an upper surface of the tarp so that the tarp is loaded with the compostable material (fig. 3; Abstract, paragraph 1; Claim 4); and bringing at least first and second diagonally-opposing corners of the tarp together, gathering the first and second diagonally-opposing corners, and tying the first and second gathered, diagonally-opposing corners to each other to form a first integral carrying handle for the loaded tarp (figs. 4B-5; Abstract, paragraph 1; Description, paragraph 4; Claim 4).
Ryerson fails to disclose the method uses a kit comprising at least two tarps, each tarp being folded to a size that is less than 10% of the unfolded, total area of the tarp, with the folded tarps being arranged as a stack in a common package; removing a folded tarp from the common package.
However, NPL ’02 teaches the method uses a kit (“Tarp Kit”) comprising at least two tarps (Description – 5 Tarps), each tarp being folded to a size that is less than 10% of the unfolded, total area of the tarp (Picture showing folded tarps; In order for the folded area to be less than 10% of the unfolded area requires only 2 complete folds of the tarp (e.g. a 10’x10’ tarp folded both directions twice is 2.5’x2.5’ which is 100 square feet vs. 6.25 square feet), the drawings show the tarps folded at least completely twice), with the folded tarps being arranged as a stack (Picture showing stack) in a common package (Description – “Storage Case” which is the same shape as the stack); removing a folded tarp from the common package (Picture showing stack outside the Storage Case).
Given the teachings of NPL ’02, it would have been obvious the one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Ryerson in view of Drews, Song and Jordan to comprise a kit with at least two tarps folded to be less than 10% in size from an unfolded area. Doing so would make the tarps easier to sell and transport by offering more tarps in a single package. Such is a notoriously well-known reason in the art of packaging.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the limitation of “folded to a size that is less than 10% of the unfolded, total area of the tarp” is not explicitly disclosed, the Office previously took official notice in the Office Action of 29 December 2025 that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the tarps folded to a size that is less than 10% of the unfolded, total area of the tarp. Doing so would only involve folding a tarp in both directions (length and width) twice. A total of 4 folds was entirely achievable within the art and would be desired to reduce the overall footprint of the tarps when not in use. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Regarding claim 26, Ryerson fails to disclose the method wherein the tarp is packaged in a folded condition in which it exhibits a size that is less than 10% of the total area of the tarp when unfolded.
However, NPL ’02 teaches a method wherein the tarp is packaged (Description – “Storage Case” which is the same shape as the stack) in a folded condition (Picture showing stack) in which it exhibits a size that is less than 10% of the total area of the tarp when unfolded (Picture showing folded tarps; In order for the folded area to be less than 10% of the unfolded area requires only 2 complete folds of the tarp (e.g. a 10’x10’ tarp folded both directions twice is 2.5’x2.5’ which is 100 square feet vs. 6.25 square feet), the drawings show the tarps folded at least completely twice).
Given the teachings of NPL ’02, it would have been obvious the one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Ryerson in view of Drews, Song and Jordan to comprise tarps packaged and folded to be less than 10% in size from an unfolded area. Doing so would make the tarps easier to sell and transport by offering more tarps in a single package. Such is a notoriously well-known reason in the art of packaging.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the limitation of “folded to a size that is less than 10% of the unfolded, total area of the tarp” is not explicitly disclosed, the Office took official notice in the Office Action of 29 December 2025 that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the tarps folded to a size that is less than 10% of the unfolded, total area of the tarp. Doing so would only involve folding a tarp in both directions (length and width) twice. A total of 4 folds was entirely achievable within the art and would be desired to reduce the overall footprint of the tarps when not in use. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryerson (CA 3 037 914 A1) in view of Drews (US 2020/0165761 A1) in view of Song (US 10,273,612 B2) in view of NPL ’01 (“How to tarp your green waste load to prevent spreading Japanese beetle”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNgeIKA6CY ; Published 16 October 2020) in view of Jordan (US Patent 10,086,995 B2) in view of Nunn (US 2011/0094691 A1)in view of Godfried et al. (US Patent 5,364,188) hereinafter referred to as Godfried.
Regarding claim 24, Ryerson as modified by Drews, Song and NPL ‘01 discloses wherein the tarp comprises first and second compostable (Ryerson – Abstract; Song - paragraphs 0020, 0094, paragraphs 0005, 0060-0063, 0065-0066; Abstract), first and second diagonally-opposing corners of the fibrous nonwoven web (Drews - Abstract; paragraphs 0008, 0020, 0029, 0032-0033, 0035-0036; fig. 1; NPL ’01 – corners of square tarp), but fails to disclose complementary joining structures on the corners.
However, Godfried teaches a method of using a tarp (4) configured for use as a container for transporting compostable material (Abstract), wherein there are complementary joining structures (5a-d – “cohesive adhesive”) on first and second diagonally-opposing corners of the tarp (figs. 1-2).
Given the teachings of Godfried, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Ryerson as modified by Drews, Song and NPL ’01 to including complementary joining structures on first and second diagonally-opposing corners of the tarp. Doing so would allow the contents in the tarp to be better secured for transport.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryerson (CA 3 037 914 A1) in view of Drews (US 2020/0165761 A1) in view of Song (US 10,273,612 B2) in view of NPL ’01 (“How to tarp your green waste load to prevent spreading Japanese beetle”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNgeIKA6CY ; Published 16 October 2020) in view of Jordan (US Patent 10,086,995 B2) in view of Nunn (US 2011/0094691 A1) in view of Bonnyod et al. (Effect of Melt Jet Spinning Process on Poly(lactic acid) Disposable Nonwoven Fabric Production; Fibers and Polymers 2022, Vol. 23, No. 6, pgs. 1525-1531; ISSN 1875-0052) hereinafter referred to as Bonnyod.
Regarding claim 30, Ryerson as modified by Drews and Song discloses wherein the tarp is comprised of PLA nonwoven fabric, but fails to disclose wherein the tarp exhibits a 50 cc Gurley densometer time of less than 15 seconds.
However, Boonyod teaches wherein a PLA nonwoven fabric exhibits a 50 cc Gurley densometer time of less than 15 seconds (pg. 1530, col. 2 – “the air permeability of PLA nonwoven fabric of different die-to-collector distances were ranged from 237-479 l/s/m2 (23.7-47.9 cm3/s/cm2)”; Given that it allows between 23.7-47.9 cc per second, it will at least achieve 50 cc within 15 seconds.)
Given the teachings of Boonyod, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the PLA nonwoven fabric of Ryerson as modified by Drews and Song exhibit a 50 cc Gurley densometer time of less than 15 seconds. Boonyod teaches that such a value was common to the type of material already being used by Ryerson as modified by Drews and Song. Doing so would allow the material to be manufactured to known and typical conditions. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum of working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05 I and II)
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryerson (CA 3 037 914 A1) in view of Drews (US 2020/0165761 A1) in view of Song (US 10,273,612 B2) in view of NPL ’01 (“How to tarp your green waste load to prevent spreading Japanese beetle”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNgeIKA6CY ; Published 16 October 2020) in view of Jordan (US Patent 10,086,995 B2) in view of Nunn (US 2011/0094691 A1) in view of Gu et al. (Functionalization of Biodegradable PLA Nonwoven Fabric as Superoleophilic and Superhydrophobic Material for Efficient Oil Absorption and Oil/Water Separation; ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Vol. 9, Issue 7, 22 February 2017, pgs. 5968-5973; ISSN 1944-8252) hereinafter referred to as Gu.
Regarding claim 32, Ryerson as modified by Drews and Song discloses wherein the tarp is comprised of PLA nonwoven fabric that has hydrophobic treatments (Drews – paragraphs 0023, 0059), but fails to disclose wherein the nonwoven fibrous web is non-water-absorbent, exhibiting a water absorption of less than 0.8 %.
However, Gu teaches a PLA nonwoven fibrous web is non-water-absorbent (“Superhydrophoic”; pg. 5969 section 3.1, pg. 5970, fig. 2).
Given the teachings of Gu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have the PLA nonwoven fabric of Ryerson as modified by Drews and Song be superhydrophobic. Doing so would prevent the material from carrying unwanted water and thus increasing the weight of the tarp as it was used more and exposed to water. Wherein the specific value of exhibiting a water absorption of less than 0.8 % is not disclosed, the Office further notes that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum of working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05 I and II). Drew teaches the desirability of the nonwoven material being non-water-abosorbent and Gu teaches a similar material being non-water-absorbent to an extreme degree (i.e. (“Superhydrophoic”). As such having a water absorption of less than 0.8 % would have been obvious as the general conditions are already taught and having such a small value of water absorption is desirable so as to prevent the tarp from weighing more during use and also helps to prevent holding or growing mold in the tarp by having less water present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Drews does not teach the unfinished edges recited in claim 10. The Office contends that Drews (and Song) does teach this feature, and that the limitation of “unfinished edges” is admitted prior art as there was a statement of official notice in the Office Action of 29 December 2025 which was not timely traversed. Drews is deemed to teach the “unfinished edges” limitation insofar as it is defined by the claims and understood in light of the Applicant’s disclosure. As seen in Figs. 4A-D of Drews, the edges of the tarp are deemed to be “unfinished” as defined by the claim and set forward in the Applicant’s specification, because the edges are shown as having “the same composition and fiber arrangement as interior portions of the tarp”. There is no change in pattern associated with the edge area of the tarp of Drews. It is in this same manner that the Applicant’s invention has point bonds (13) at the edge of their tarp (1; see fig. 1), but the Applicant does not deem these bonds to constitute “finishing” because those same patterns of bonds are found on the interior of the tarp. As such, Drews is deemed to teach this “unfinished edge” limitation when viewed in light of the Applicant’s own disclosure. In short, the bonds that exist at the edges of Drews are effectively the claimed “point-bonds” and do not constitute a “finishing” in the same way that the Applicant’s point-bonds near their edges do not constitute a “finishing” of the edges. Song further teaches this same lack of finishing (col. 7 line 59 – col. 8 line 29).
Applicant’s traversal of Official notice is not timely and is generally supported by the field of art as put forward in Drews and Song. The limitation in question is a negative limitation which requires the absence of an element. The omission of an element and its function in combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before is understood to only involve routine skill in the art (In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184). Given that the point-bonds and autogenous bonds are the only cited structures in Drews and Song which are required to hold the material together, there isn’t any necessary finishing structures that would render the combination unsuitable for its function absent edge finishing.
The cited motivations for introducing the teachings of Drews and Song are still deemed to be valid and based on the known state of the art prior to the time of effective filing. Both Ryerson and Drew are concerned with a web material that is compostable for better environmental outcomes, and Drew teaches how such a compostable material can be produced in-mass, cost-effectively and to specified standards that are in keeping with the intended purpose of both Ryerson and Drew (i.e. for use in packaging so as to transport compostable material). Furthermore, not having the edges finished helps reduce cost of manufacturing and the omission of an unnecessary step when the remaining steps would apparently perform the same intended function involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding Song, both Song and Drews are concerned with the problem of creating the spunbonded nonwoven fibrous webs. Song teaches that the formation of the web can be accomplished by having meltspun fibers that are autogenously melt-bonded. Having the fibers be autogenously melt-bonded provides for reinforcing the overall structure of the fibrous mat to ensure it doesn’t come apart.
Nunn and Mao are still deemed to recite the claimed loft. Nunn teaches wherein a tarp using a similar nonwoven fibrous web can be deemed to exhibit a “high loft” (para 0110). Mao teaches that a high-loft, nonwoven fabrics are typically defined by a loft of at least 75% (pg. 327, para 2). As such, one of ordinary skill would consider a high loft to be that of at least 75% and these two reference in combination teach the cited limitation.
The new “four major edges” limitation is taught by NPL ’01. This limitation is essentially claiming a square tarp, which is what is taught by NPL ’01. Jordan does not teach away from this because Jordan is not being relied upon to teach this limitation. Jordan is essentially used to teach what the total area of such a tarp can typically be.
Regarding claim 24, the Office is utilizing a new rejection necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments to parent claim 10.
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 ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
