Notice of 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 § 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 1-8,11-26 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. Claims 2-8, and 11-26 are rejected as being dependent from rejection independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites:
“a permanent adhesive applied near a final end of a final portion which is covered by a film” it is unclear what is covered by the film, the permanent adhesive or the final portion.
“a final portion” in line 7 should read “the final 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Porter et al US 10,257,986 (hereinafter Porter).
Regarding claim 1, Porter discloses a material for packaging agricultural products, which is formed per a single and continuous film (wrap material 5 formed from a continuous roll of raw material from supply roll 2; fig.1; col.4 lines 20-24) which comprises of a plurality of individual packaging portions (6) that are detachable from each other through a tear line (each individual portion is detachable through a tear line shown as 10 at segments of the rolled material for wrapping approximately 20-30 bales; col.4 lines 25-30), said individual packaging portion having an initial portion and a final portion (fig 10-11 shows tear separation at line 10 8a,8b showing the initial and final portions of the segments),
PNG
media_image1.png
286
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the material for packaging agricultural products further comprises a permanent adhesive (Aa,Ab,Ac) applied near a final end of the final portion, which is covered by a film whose end, which overlaps said permanent adhesive, is folded into a “V” configuration, and an opposite end extends over an initial end of the initial portion of a subsequent individual packaging portion where it is fixed (see annotated figs 12-12c below; col.6 lines 14-50).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 2, Porter discloses the material for packaging agricultural products, according to claim 1, wherein the said continuous single film is, at least in part of its extension, coated with a layer of non-permanent adhesive applied to one of its surfaces (col.4 line 53-col.5 line 12; “the adhesive area may or may not use a release liner such as 8a. some wrapping material may release from the adhesive”).
Regarding claim 3, Porter discloses the material for packaging agricultural products, according to claim 1, wherein the said end of the film is fixed to the initial portion of the individual packaging portion through fixing elements (12a-12c shows an adhesive system using the V-fold mechanism; col 5 line 12- col.6 line 50).
Regarding claim 4, Porter discloses the material for packaging agricultural products, according to claim 3, wherein the fastening elements are solders, glues or adhesives (12a-12c shows an adhesive system using the V-fold mechanism; col 5 line 12- col.6 line 50).
Regarding claim 5, Porter discloses the material for packaging agricultural products, according to claim 1, wherein the said permanent adhesive (Aa,Ab,Ac) is a glue or an adhesive tape, which is applied to at least a portion along the transverse extent (along the transverse portion surrounding the tear line 10) of the single, continuous film near the end of the end portion of each portion of individual packaging (see annotated figs 12-12c above; col.6 lines 14-50).
Regarding claim 6, Porter discloses the material for packaging agricultural products, according to claim 1, wherein the said single and continuous film comprises, in the region of the rupture line, a taper-type narrowing (an alternative tear configuration shown as 110 in figs. 24a,24b, disclose a narrowing of the edges of the continuous film at the region of the rupture line; col. 9 lines 18-41).
Regarding claim 7, Porter discloses the material for packaging agricultural products, according to claim 6, wherein the said taper-type narrowing is on both side edges (an alternative tear configuration shown as 110 in figs. 24a,24b, disclose a narrowing of the edges of the continuous film at the region of the rupture line; col. 9 lines 18-41).
Regarding claim 8, Porter discloses the material for packaging agricultural products, according to claim 6, wherein the said taper type narrowing is formed by the combination of an angular narrowing and a complementary segment, on which said film is positioned and fixed, on one side, through the elements and, on the other side, adhered to the permanent adhesive (an alternative tear configuration shown as 110 in figs. 24a,24b, disclose a narrowing of the edges of the continuous film at the region of the rupture line through elements and on the other side adhered to the permanent adhesive 118; col. 9 lines 18-41).
Regarding claim 13, Porter discloses the material for packaging agricultural products, according to claim 1, wherein the said rupture line (10) is formed by weakening points, pre-rupture points and/or weakening points (10;fig.2; col.4 lines 43-55).
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al (US 10,257,986).
Regarding claim 11, Porter discloses the material for packaging agricultural products, according to claim 2,
Porter discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the said non-permanent type adhesive layer is applied on the individual packaging portion in a proportion ranges from 5-95% of the total extent of said individual packaging portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the non-permanent adhesive layer in a proportion of 5-95%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, par 0044, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Porter discloses the material for packaging agricultural products, according to claim 2.
Porter discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the said layer of non-permanent adhesive is applied to 50% of the individual packaging portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the non-adhesive layer applied to 50% of the individual packaging portion, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, par 0044 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 18,21, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al (US 10,257,986) in view of Goering (US 8,071,196).
Regarding claim 18, Porter discloses a method of producing a material for packaging agricultural products of claim 1, comprising:
a) producing a single and continuous plastic film, through the formulation of the raw material and preparation of the film extruder (wrap material 5 formed from a continuous roll of raw material from supply roll 2; fig.1; col.4 lines 20-24);
b) producing said single and continuous plastic film in reels (2,3), of the jumbo type, which are subjected to inspection to be packaged and identified;
c) storing said jumbo reel so that it can be applied to the single and continuous plastic film production line where the following steps are carried out:
c.1) unwinding said jumbo reel (unwind supply roll 2);
c.3) executing a rupture line (10) in said single and continuous film, which is responsible for projecting portions of individual packages (each individual portion is detachable through a tear line shown as 10 at segments of the rolled material for wrapping approximately 20-30 bales; col.4 lines 25-30), with this rupture line being arranged between the portion end of an individual packaging portion and the initial portion of the subsequent individual packaging portion formed by said single and continuous film(fig 10-11 shows tear separation at line 10 8a,8b showing the initial and final portions of the segments);
c.4) applying a permanent adhesive close to the final end of the final portion (permanent adhesive Aa,Ab,Ac);
c.5) accommodating a film over the single and continuous film, so that the end, which overlaps the permanent adhesive, is folded forming a “V” configuration, and the opposite end extends over the initial end of the initial portion of the subsequent individual packaging portion (see annotated figs 12-12c above; col.6 lines 14-50);
c.6) applying fixing elements to the end of said film (12a-12c shows an adhesive system using the V-fold mechanism; col 5 line 12- col.6 line 50).;
c.7) winding said continuous single film onto a reel to be introduced into an automated harvesting machine (wound onto reel 3 for harvesting);
e) storing said reel of single and continuous film (fig.1; col.4 lines 20-30).
Porter fails to explicitly teach, c.2) positioning and applying the signaling means, such as a metallized label; d) inspecting of the reels of single and continuous film to be packaged and identified;
However Goering teaches a wrapping material for a cotton baling machine comprising RFID signaling 82 to identify regions along wrapping material (62; col.5 lines 40-56).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the method of making would baling material as taught by Porter with the addition of RFID tags as disclosed by Goering to be able to identify sections of the wrapping material and allow indication to the operator which side of the wrapped module would be best for ground contact (Goering col.5 lines 50-55)
Regarding claim 21, Porter as modified by Goering substantially teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein, before step (c.7), comprises: c.6b) performing a narrowing to make a taper -type narrowing, on at least one of the side edges of said individual packaging portion (an alternative tear configuration shown as 110 in figs. 24a,24b, disclose a narrowing of the edges of the continuous film at the region of the rupture line; col. 9 lines 18-41).
Regarding claim 22, Porter as modified by Goering substantially teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein the said step (c.3) is conducted through a process of formation of weakening points, pre-rupture points and/or weakening points (10;fig.2; col.4 lines 43-55).
Regarding claim 24, Porter as modified by Goering substantially teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein Porter fails to disclose during said step (c.2) the signaling means (6) is a photocell, a paint-based indication, a metallic paint, a metallic element, a marking, a demarcation, a bar code or a punched code.
However Goering further teaches a wrapping material for a cotton baling machine comprising RFID signaling 82 to identify regions along wrapping material (62; col.5 lines 40-56).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the method of making would baling material as taught by Porter with the addition of RFID tags as disclosed by Goering to be able to identify sections of the wrapping material and allow indication to the operator which side of the wrapped module would be best for ground contact (Goering col.5 lines 50-55)
Regarding claim 25, Porter as modified by Goering substantially teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein Porter fails to explicitly teach after step (c.2), said continuous plastic film (1) is subjected to a step of inclusion of at least one radio frequency labels/tags — RFIDs.
However Goering further teaches a wrapping material for a cotton baling machine comprising RFID signaling 82 to identify regions along wrapping material (62; col.5 lines 40-56).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the method of making would baling material as taught by Porter with the addition of RFID tags as disclosed by Goering to be able to identify sections of the wrapping material and allow indication to the operator which side of the wrapped module would be best for ground contact (Goering col.5 lines 50-55)
Regarding claim 26, Porter as modified by Goering substantially teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein Porter further teaches the said step (c.6), said fastening elements are solders, glues or adhesives (12a-12c shows an adhesive system using the V-fold mechanism; col 5 line 12- col.6 line 50).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al US 10,257,986 in view of Goering US 8,071,196 in further view of Huffer US 2021/0114773.
Regarding claim 19, Porter as modified by Goering substantially teaches the method, according to claim 18, wherein Porter further discloses after step (c.3):
c.3a) intermittent application of a layer of non-permanent adhesive on one of the surfaces of the single and continuous film, forming a portion without non-permanent adhesive and a portion containing said adhesive non-permanent type (col.4 line 53-col.5 line 12; “the adhesive area may or may not use a release liner such as 8a. some wrapping material may release from the adhesive”);
Porter fails to explicitly teach, c.3b) subjecting the single and continuous film to a drying and absorption process of the non-permanent adhesive in an oven.
However Huffer teaches a flexible packaging web for forming individual packages using a non-permanent adhesive 28 which may be advanced to a dryer such as an oven to dry or partially dry the adhesive with the use of a release liner; par 0041.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the method as taught by porter as modified by Goering with the addition of an oven to efficiently dry the adhesive during the steps of operation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al US 10,257,986 in view of Goering US 8,071,196 in further view of Hardie et al. US2018/0098891 (hereinafter Hardie).
Regarding claim 20, Porter as modified by Goering substantially teaches the method according to claim 18, Porter as modified by Goering fail to teach wherein after step (c.6), comprises: c.6a) applying talcum powder close to the side edges (2c) of said single and continuous film.
However Hardie teaches a method of manufacturing a web of material into discreet articles and further applying talcum powder during processing to mitigate tackiness when using a fastening adhesive and release liner (par 0138).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the method of processing and forming baling roll webs as disclosed by Porter in view of Goering with the addition of applying talcum powder to the web to prevent tackiness and allow for smoother and more efficient continuous web movement during operation.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al US 10,257,986 in view of Goering US 8,071,196 in further view of Huang et al. US 2021/0300649 (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 23, Porter as modified by Goering substantially teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein Porter discloses a perforation line 10 but fails to explicitly teach during said step (c.3), the rupture line (8) is obtained using laser tools, with hot or cold metal knives, serrated cutting knives, straight cutting knives, pyramidal cutting knives , triangular cutting knives, with laser micro perforations or surface embrittlement.
However Huang teaches a cotton baling method including forming perforation lines using a perforation laser cutter 74 to form perforation line 6 in the continuously formed web as seen in fig.6; (par 0073-0076).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the method as taught by Porter in view of Gering with the laser cutter as taught by Huang to form precision perforation lines to prevent tangling of the film at the time of separation (Huang abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-13. That Porter fails to teach a protective film that overlaps the permanent adhesive layer, because porter teaches protecting the adhesive layer by overlapping with itself.
However this limitation is not recited in the claim to define that there is a separate protective film that covers the permanent adhesive, additionally in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “protective film” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 requires “ a permanent adhesive applied near a final end of a final portion which is covered by a film” this does not require the film to be a separate protective film as argued, as such the continuous film of Porter reads on this limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mass et al. US 7,541,080 teaches a wrapping material with a z lock system and V-fold including a release layer 17 which covers a permanent adhesive and protects the adhesive as shown in figure 12; col. 2 lines 9-28. Examiner reserves the right to use this reference in a future examiner when deemed necessary.
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 MARY C HIBBERT-COPELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0601. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9am -5pm.
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 5712701926. 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.
/MARY C HIBBERT-COPELAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights