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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 26-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method of manufacturing a wrapping unit, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 1st, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-25) in the reply filed on June 1st,2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination of the Groups I-II does not present an undue burden. This argument is not found persuasive as the presence of undue burden does not rebut a requirement for unity of invention. The technical feature common across Groups I-II is found within the prior art, and therefore, regardless of burden, unity of invention is not present.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-25 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 1, 2, 5, 7-19, and 25 each use the phrase “reduced risk material”, which renders the claims indefinite. At the outset, it is noted that the phrase “reduced risk material” constitutes relative terminology and does not describe the nature of the measured risk (i.e., a material exhibiting a reduced risk in some manner relative to another material). In turning to the present specification in attempt to find clarification, the Examiner notes the definition of “reduced risk materials” includes “material that can be easily identified and removed,” and such materials include innocuous material, which may be “paper-like,” or alternatively, “high strength polymeric materials”. The present specification reinforces the present issue of indefiniteness, as “easily”, “paper-like”, and “high strength” are also relative terms. Per MPEP 2173.05(b), terms of degree are not necessarily indefinite, though they must provide “enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention.” The present specification provides no standard for measuring what materials are “reduced risk”, and in particular, which materials may be “easily identified and removed”, are “paper-like”, or “high strength”. In addition, art-accepted standards are not present (i.e., for example, there is no universal, art accepted standard for what is “easily identified”, “paper-like”, or “high strength”. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase “reduced risk material” will be interpreted as “a material”.
As a result of this issue of indefiniteness, claims 2-25 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on present claim 1, claim 8 is rejected as indefinite due to dependence on present claim 7, and claims 20-25 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on present claim 19.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “the polymeric portion has a length that extends around at least a portion of a perimeter of the baled agricultural product,” which is considered indefinite as it conflicts with the language of present claim 1. Present claim 1 states that the claimed wrapping material is “for wrapping around a baled agricultural product,” and claim 1 does not positively recite a baled agricultural product. However, claim 4 is written as if a baled agricultural product is positively recited. It is not clear if claim 4 is attempting to change the claimed invention from a wrapping film to a combination of a wrapping film and a baled agricultural product, or if claim 4 still ultimately regards wrapping around a baled agricultural product as intended use. The present specification does not provide any insight rectifying this issue. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 4 will be interpreted as directed to an intended use (i.e., as if the baled agricultural product is not positively recited).
Claims 5-9 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 4.
Claims 22-24 recite the indefinite term “tacky”. It is noted that “tacky” is a relative term which describes adhesion. However, the present specification does not adequately describe the term “tacky” in a manner such that its meaning is clear to a person of ordinary skill. The term “tacky” does not have a single, universally understood meaning within the art. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase “tacky” will be interpreted as polymeric.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-15, and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mass et al (US2004/0121108A1).
With regards to claim 1, Mass discloses a wrapping for agricultural baler (i.e., a wrapping material for wrapping around a baled agricultural product) comprising a wrapping material 2 (i.e., a wrapping unit) depicted as having an end away from an item 3 and an opposite end proximate to item 3 (i.e., the wrapping unit extending from a leading end to a trailing end), the wrapping material 2 including a film 6 at the end away from item 3 (i.e., the wrapping unit including a reduced risk material portion extending a distance along the wrapping unit from the leading end) (Mass: Fig. 3; para. [0031]-[0034]). The film 6 is made from polyethylene or synthetic resin, which, as best understood, constitute reduced risk materials according to the present claim (as both are technically a material) (Mass: para. [0032]). In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase “for wrapping around a baled agricultural product” constitutes an intended use. As such, any material (such as a wrapping material) which is capable of being wrapped around a baled agricultural product meets the present limitation. Separately, the wrapping of Mass is, more broadly, a wrapping material, and therefore, it is considered capable of wrapping around at least some baled agricultural product (Mass: para. [0031]-[0034]).
With regards to claim 2, Mass discloses that the film 6 (i.e., disclosed as a segment) can be long enough to cover the circumference of the wrapped item 3 (i.e., the reduced risk material portion has a length that extends around at least a portion of a perimeter of the baled agricultural product when the wrapping material is wrapped around the baled agricultural product) (Mass: para. [0032]). Alternatively, the present limitation constitutes an intended use. It is submitted that the wrapping material of Mass is capable of wrapping around at least a portion of a perimeter of a baled agricultural product, as, technically, any wrapping material is capable of the present intended use.
With regards to claim 3, Mass discloses the wrapping material as further including a netting 4, which is depicted as extending a distance along the wrapping unit from the trailing end (Mass: Fig. 3; para. [0031]-[0034]). Mass further discloses the netting 4 as made of, for example, polyethylene (i.e., constitutes a polymeric portion) (Mass: para. [0032]).
With regards to claim 4, Mass discloses that the netting 4 (i.e., disclosed as a segment) can be long enough to cover the circumference of the wrapped item 3 (i.e., the polymeric portion has a length that extends around a perimeter of the baled agricultural product, wherein the wrapping unit completes at least one revolution around the baled agricultural product) (Mass: para. [0032]). Alternatively, the present limitation constitutes an intended use. It is submitted that the wrapping material of Mass is capable of wrapping around at least a portion of a perimeter of a baled agricultural product, as, technically, any wrapping material is capable of the present intended use.
With regards to claim 6, it is noted that the present claim does not disclose the circumference of the recited baled agricultural product, and further, the claimed wrapping around a baled agricultural product constitutes an intended use. It is submitted that the wrapping film of Mass is capable of extending at least two revolutions around a baled agricultural product, depending on the size and shape of the agricultural product (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 7, it is noted that the present claim does not disclose the circumference of the recited baled agricultural product, and further, the claimed wrapping around a baled agricultural product constitutes an intended use. It is submitted that the reduced risk material portion and polymeric portion of Mass are each capable of wrapping around a baled agricultural product in the claimed manner, depending on the size and shape of the agricultural product (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 8, it is submitted that the reduced risk material of Mass is capable of being adjacent to a baled agricultural product, and the polymeric portion is capable of being positioned over at least a part of the reduced risk material portion, depending on the size and shape of the agricultural product (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 9, it is submitted that the reduced risk material has a length which is capable of extending at least one complete revolution around a perimeter of a baled agricultural product, depending on the size and shape of the agricultural product (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 10, the polymeric portion is considered to constitute a second layer. It is submitted that the polymeric portion has a length which is capable of surrounding at least a part of the reduced risk material portion when the wrapping material is wrapped around the baled agricultural product, depending on the method of wrapping and size and shape of the agricultural product (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 11, it is submitted that the reduced risk material portion has a length capable of extending more than one complete revolution around a baled agricultural product such that a second layer of reduced risk material portion surrounds at least part of a first layer of the reduced risk material portion, depending on the method of wrapping and size and shape of the agricultural product (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 12, the reduced risk material portion may instead be in the form of an edge segment, which is depicted by Mass as extending from a leading end to a trailing end of the wrapping unit (Mass: Fig. 9).
With regards to claim 14, Mass depicts attaching a plurality of wrapping units in sequence, such that the trailing end of each wrapping unit is releasably attached to film 6 (i.e., the reduced risk material portion of a trailing wrapping unit) (Mass: Fig. 10). As best understood, the attachment via adhesive or pressure by Mass constitutes releasable attachment in accordance with the present specification (i.e., the present specification only describes the wrapping units as “attached” without describing what is required for release, and therefore, the phrase “releasably attached” is viewed broadly as “capable of being detached”).
With regards to claim 15, the reduced risk material portion is depicted as having a predetermined length and width (Mass: Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 17, the polymeric portion is depicted as extending between the reduced risk material portion and the trailing end (Mass: Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 18, the reduced risk material portion may instead be in the form of an edge segment, which is depicted by Mass as extending from a leading end to a trailing end of the wrapping unit (Mass: Fig. 9). Since the material of Mass can be cut (as any material can be cut) it is capable of being cut into individual wrapping unit portions for each portion sized to be wrapped around a baled agricultural product, depending on the size and shape of the baled agricultural product (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 19, Mass further discloses that an additional polymeric material may form an edge segment, (i.e., an additional polymer portion extending a distance along the wrapping unit from the trailing end, the reduced risk material portion sized to be included therein) (Mass: Fig. 9). As best understood, the reduced risk material portion, once positioned around a baled agricultural product, may form a first layer, and the edge segment may form a second layer and third layer, depending on the size of the baled agricultural product (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 20, the polymer portion in the second portion and first layer, the second layer, and the third layer, all form a continuous wrapping film, and therefore, they are adhered to each other (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 21, as Mass depicts its wrapping film as a single continuous piece, the wrapping film is capable of removal from a baled agricultural product, such that every component of it (including the polymer portion) is a single piece (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 22, since the polymer portion is made of polymer, it includes a second portion of its first layer which faces away from the baled agricultural product, depending on the orientation of the polymer portion (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 23, since the polymer portion is made of polymer, then once it is positioned around a baled agricultural unit, a second layer thereof is capable from facing away from the baled agricultural unit, or facing towards the baled agricultural unit (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 24, since the polymer portion is made of polymer, then once it is positioned around a baled agricultural unit, a third layer thereof is capable from facing towards the baled agricultural unit (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 25, it is noted that, technically, any material has a surface texture, and therefore, the reduced risk material would have a surface texture on at least one portion of at least one surface when positioned around a baled agricultural product (see above discussion).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mass et al as applied to claim 4 above.
With regards to claim 5, Mass discloses a wrapping material as applied to claim 4 above (see above discussion). Mass does not appear to be explicit as to a length of a reduced risk material portion which is about 20% or less of a total length of the wrapping unit. However, in multiple instances, Mass, expressly instructs a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the lengths of its wrapping segments (i.e., inclusive of the length of the reduced risk material portion), depending on the size and shape of the item to be wrapped (Mass: para. [0032], [0039], and [0041]). As best understood, the lengths of the individual segments relative to one another, and relative to the length of the film, may be varied (Mass: para. [0032], [0039], and [0041]). Mass further discloses that the individual segments have different functions, such as providing high tensile strength, non-cling properties, or fulfilling different wrapping requirements (Mass: para. [0043]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the length of the reduced risk material portion of Mass, based on the express suggestion in Mass to optimize, and further, for the purpose of providing a wrapping material customized for a specific size and shape of agricultural product, with the properties as desired (see above discussion).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mass et al as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sullivan (US4,346,149A).
With regards to claim 13, Mass discloses a wrapping material as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Mass does not disclose the inclusion of a water-resistant additive, treatment, or coating in its reduced risk material portion.
Sullivan is directed to a water-based aluminum paint for coating polyethylene films used for outdoor agricultural tasks (noting that the reduced risk material portion of Mass is made of polyethylene) (Sullivan: abstract; col. 1, lines 5-30; claim 1). Sullivan teaches its paint as having high reflectivity towards light, high water resistance, and high crack resistance (Sullivan: abstract; col. 1, lines 15-30 and 53-60; claim 1). In particular, the paint of Sullivan provides light reflection, thereby preventing sun penetration into adjacent plants (i.e., as best understood, to prevent sun rays from damaging or reducing moisture in plants) (Sullivan: col. 1, lines 15-30). Sullivan further acknowledges that water resistance is more broadly desirable in the field of agricultural films, though, its water resistance also allows water to run freely off the film without bleeding of film materials (Sullivan: col. 1, lines 53-30; col 2, lines 19-22). Mass and Sullivan are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of polyethylene materials used for agricultural purposes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the coating of Sullivan to the reduced risk material portion of Mass, in order to enable a higher degree of light reflectivity, thereby enabling the film of Sullivan to protect wrapped agricultural products from degradation due to sunlight, while also providing water resistance (see above discussion).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mass et al as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tanaka et al (WO2020162265A1). Tanaka is read from an English machine translation which has been placed in the application file.
With regards to claim 16, Mass discloses a wrapping material as applied to claim 1 above. Mass does not appear to disclose the reduced risk material as formed of a paper, crepe paper, cellulose-based material, starch-based material, linen, or cotton-based material.
Tanaka is directed to a net wrap made of cellulosic fiber (i.e., cellulose-based material) used for agricultural bales (Tanaka, hereinafter with reference to its English translation: abstract; page 2, “Traditionally, in the livestock industry…”). Tanaka specifically selects cellulosic fiber, since if such fiber is mixed with feed or fermentation raw material (i.e., during, for example, degradation), there is little influence on livestock or fermentation (i.e., the cellulosic material does not harm or negatively influence livestock or fermentation processes) (Tanaka: page 2, “This net lap maintains merit…”; page 3, “In this way, because both warp and weft are made of cellulosic fiber…”). In addition, cellulosic fiber is biodegradable, enabling it to be disposed via return to adjacent soil, and in addition, Tanaka teaches its cellulosic net wrap as being fermentable to form a biofuel such as bioethanol (Tanaka: page 2, “This net lap maintains merit…”; page 5, “Also, when using roll bale as a fermentation raw material…”). Mass and Tanaka are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of agricultural bale materials. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the reduced risk material of Mass from cellulosic fiber, in order to reduce the harm to livestock and fermentation when the reduced risk material degrades, and further, to make it biodegradable and fermentable into bioethanol (see above discussion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights