DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response and amendments filed 13 February 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 .
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, 22-25 and 27-28 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 Jordan, Jr. (US Patent 10,086,995 B2) hereinafter referred to as Jordan 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.
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 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. 4B, 4C and 4D; There is no edge pattern or finishing provided to the webs) 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 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).
Ryerson as modfied by Drew teaches ionization used in 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.
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).
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 modfied by Drew to modify the ionization 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.
Ryerson discloses a method 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, but fails to disclose the tarp is from 25 square feet to 50 square feet in total area when unfolded.
However, Jordan teaches a method using a tarp (10) from 25 square feet to 50 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 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 teaches wherein the tarp is generally square in shape, but does not disclose wherein it is square in shape 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 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.
The Office deems Ryerson in view of Drew and Song to disclose the web having “unfinished edges” (See Drew, figs. 4B, 4C and 4D). 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).
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 14 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 Jordan and NPL ‘01 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 2:02) and is from 30 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 24, Ryerson as modified by Drews discloses wherein the tarp comprises first and second compostable, complementary joining structures (Ryerson – fig. 1 – “Ties”; Abstract – paragraph 1; figs. 3 and 4b) on first and second diagonally-opposing corners of the fibrous nonwoven web (Drews - Abstract; paragraphs 0008, 0020, 0029, 0032-0033, 0035-0036; fig. 1).
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).
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 Jordan (US Patent 10,086,995 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 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) 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 Jordan (US Patent 10,086,995 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 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), 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Drews and Song are not compatible references because they are concerned with different problems. This is not fount persuasive because both Drews and Song are concerned with the same general problem of bonding nonwoven, spunbonded PLA fabrics together. Applicant’s arguments in this regard amount to drawing an overly narrow boundary around the field of applicable art (i.e. limiting Song’s teachings to only be applicable to air filters) and then arguing anything outside that narrow definition would not be an applicable teaching reference to one of ordinary skill.
Applicant argues that Drews is concerned about “high production speeds” and therefore the teachings of Song would not be applicable. It is noted that paragraph 0052 of Drews cites that the draw speed of the fiber can be in the range of 2500 in/min (or less) to upwards of 5500 in/min. However, Song has fiber speeds of 1000-14000 meters/min. This puts the teachings of Song in comparable ranges of fiber draw speeds as Drews. Song further recites, col. 9 lines 25-44, that the thermal exposure for the autogenous melt-bonding can happen with as little as 0.1 seconds of exposure. This means that the teachings of Song are deemed to be compatible with a high production speed as it needs only 0.1 second to effect the autogenous bonding. The argument regarding the purported production line speed discrepancy is thus not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to combine Drews with Song because Drews does not have charging additives present, and there would be no need to combine such references. Again, the Office views this as the Applicant drawing an overly narrow boundary around what they deem to be applicable prior art. While not the primary response to this argument, the Office notes that Drews (paragraph 0059) does note that it can be used with a variety of additives. As such, even if conceding the Applicant’s limited scope of endeavor, Drews would still fall within it. That aside, the Office notes that both Drews and Song are concerned about the problem of bonding nonwoven, spunbonded PLA fabrics together. Having additional bonding between fabrics is going to help hold those fabrics together and ensure they are less likely to come apart. This was and is the Office’s stated motivation for the combination.
This combination can be seen as being inferred by both Drews and Song. Drews (paragraph 0098) states, “The layers of the multilayer structure can be bonded together to form a multilayer composite sheet material using thermal bonding, mechanical bonding, adhesive bonding, hydroentangling, or combinations of these” (emphasis added). Drews already discloses a mechanical bonding via the calendar roller (28). Song was a known type of thermal bonding. Additionally, Song can be deemed to also be suggestive of such a combination. In col. 10 lines 47-51 of Song it reads, “If desired, one or more secondary bonding operations (in addition to the autogenous bonding) may be performed. Any such operation may be done in-line with the web-producing operation”. Given this, both Drews and Song are deemed to suggest the idea of their respective bonding methods being used with other bonding methods. Despite the Applicant’s assertions to the contrary, having the fabric both autogenously melt-bonded and melt-bonded by point-bonds appears to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing and taught by prior art for the reasons provided.
The Applicant has narrowed the scope of the independent claim (and previously dependent claim 29) to now claim a 95% web-usage efficiency factor. According to the Applicant’s specification, this is understood to be a result of a square shape tarp being used to perform the method. To more closely read on this narrower limitation, the Office is presently turning to NPL ’01 as it shows a square tarp being used in such a way that it is deemed to demonstrate the now claimed 95% web-usage efficiency.
Insofar as the Applicant’s arguments are directed toward specific features of previously cited Greenland, those arguments are now moot. The lack of diagonal tying of the prior argued by the Applicant was not deemed accurate as such was deemed to be taught by Ryerson. However, in this new combination of references, this limitation is also further taught by NPL ’01. The Applicant tries to argue that Ryerson does not tie the tarp-corners, but rather handles (“ties”) together. This is not persuasive because the “ties” and tarp are an integral structure and thus the “ties” are the corner of the tarp. Even still, the inclusion of NPL ’01 further teaches the tying of diagonal corners of the tarp.
For all these reasons the claims remain rejected.
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