DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 3 September 2025.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 11-13 are currently pending and being examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3 September 2025 has been entered.
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 “spaced apart parallel pivots” (Claim 9) 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 and dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 line 5-6 recites “the strapping head is pivotally secured to the frame via spaced apart parallel pivots”, which is new matter because the specification and drawings do not show spaced apparat parallel pivots. As shown in figure 8 of the present application the pivots 64 are coincident (their axes overlap completely), therefore not parallel (lines that never intersect and are always the same distance apart). Since, parallel pivots were not disclosed in the originally filed Specification and Drawings, it is new matter.
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 9 and dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 line 5-6 recites “the strapping head is pivotally secured to the frame via spaced apart parallel pivots”, which is unclear because it is not disclosed in the Specification or Drawings. Also, if the pivots were parallel the strapping head would not be able to operate to tilt the strapping head because it would either not pivot or pivot askew, which would make the apparatus not operate properly. Examiner will interpret the pivots as coincident, which is disclosed in figure 6 of the present application.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenneisen (FR 2133078 A5), reference made to the Espacenet translation provided with the non-final dated 10 September 2024, in view of Daniel (US 6,553,900) and Stone (US 2019/0291901), further in view of Huson (US 3,834,297).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1, Brenneisen teaches a strapping system (fig.6) for automatically applying strapping to at least one associated object (lines 31-44), the strapping system comprising:
a frame (at least 20,16-fig.6);
a strapping head (15-fig.6) mounted to the frame (lines 45-57);
a fixed vertical track section (A-annotated fig.6) mounted to the frame;
a lower track section (B-annotated fig.6) mounted to the frame below the strapping head (15-fig.6);
an upper track section (C-annotated fig.6)
Brenneisen does not teach an upper track section mounted to the frame above the strapping head and a movable track section mounted to a distal end of one of the upper or lower track sections, the movable track section movable from a first open position to a second closed position, the movable track section cooperating with the lower track section, the upper track section and the vertical track section when in the second closed position to form a chute for advancing strapping around the at least one associated object; wherein at least one retaining member secures the moveable track section in the second closed position.
However, Daniel teaches an upper track section (44-fig.1) mounted to the frame (18-fig.1) above the strapping head (40-fig.1) and a movable track section (48-fig.1) mounted to a distal end of the upper track sections (see fig.1 showing 48 mounted distally via 28), the movable track section movable from a first open position (dotted line portion of fig.1) to a second closed position (solid line portion of fig.1; 3:24-44), the movable track section cooperating with the lower track section, the upper track section and the vertical track section when in the second closed position to form a chute for advancing strapping around the at least one associated object (3:24-44); wherein at least one retaining member (at least 28,36,34,32,30-fig.1) secures the moveable track section in the second closed position (3:16-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Brenneisen, by adding the movable guide track and retaining member, as taught by Daniel, to complete the guide track and ensure the wire/band always going in the same path around the object and connect with the stationary guide track.
Brenneisen as modified by Daniel does not expressly teach a strapping system comprising a frame mounted to an end effector of a robotic arm; wherein said robotic arm moves said strapping system from an initial position to a strapping position.
However, Stone teaches a strapping system (fig.2) comprising a frame (F-fig.5) mounted to an end effector of a robotic arm (E2-fig.2; ¶[0027]-[0033]); wherein said robotic arm (E2-fig.2) moves said strapping system from an initial position to a strapping position (¶[0027]-[0030]; figs. 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Brenneisen and Daniel, by having the strapping machine attached to a robotic arm, as taught by Stone, to allow pallets to be strapped in multiple positions versus one specific place, thus allowing for quicker processing because the robot can make further movements in the x-y-z direction.
Brenneisen as modified by Daniel and Stone does not teach a strapping head pivotably mounted to the frame via spaced apart pivots on said frame and said strapping head tilts relative to a track section.
PNG
media_image2.png
211
399
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Huson teaches a strapping head (at least 36,78,30a,77,38,35-figs.4-5; 7:21-48) pivotably mounted to the frame via spaced apart pivots (A-annotated fig.6) on said frame (31-fig.6) and said strapping head tilts relative to a track section (at least 36,78,30a,77,38,35-figs.4-5; 7:21-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention, to modify the device of Brenneisen, Daniel, and Stone, by having a pivotable strapping head, as taught by Huson, to add tension to the strap during the strapping process.
Examiner notes: To overcome the present rejection in regard to the pivots, further claiming the structure of the pivots (separate, distinct, or actual physical structure) would overcome this rejection. However, would require further search and consideration to determine allowability.
PNG
media_image3.png
515
623
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 2, Brenneisen as modified by Daniel, Stone, and Huson teaches the strapping system of claim 1, wherein the movable track section extends parallel to the track section to which it is mounted in the first open position (Daniel: see annotated fig.1 showing the track portion in the open position is parallel to 44), and wherein the movable track section extends perpendicular to the track section to which it is mounted in the second closed position (Daniel: see annotated fig.1 showing the track portion in the closed position is perpendicular to 44).
Claim 3, Brenneisen as modified by Daniel, Stone, and Huson teaches the strapping system of claim 1, further comprising at least one track actuator (Daniel: 36-fig.1) for moving the movable track section between the first open position and the second closed position (Daniel: 3:16-23).
Claim 7, Brenneisen as modified by Daniel, Stone, and Huson teaches the strapping system of claim 1, wherein the strapping head (Huson: at least 36, 77,38,35-figs.4-5; 7:21-48) can pivot between vertical and horizontal orientations (Huson: see figs.4-5 showing 36 and 38 going between a vertical and horizontal orientation).
Claim 8, Brenneisen as modified by Daniel, Stone, and Huson teaches the strapping system of claim 1, further comprising a strapping head actuator (Huson: 77-fig.4) supported by the frame (Huson:22-fig.4), the strapping head actuator operatively connected between the frame and the strapping head for effecting tilting movement of the strapping head (Huson: 7:21-48).
Claim 13, Brenneisen teaches a method of strapping an object (lines 31-44) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
352
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
positioning a strapping system (fig.6) adjacent the object (C-fig.6; lines 137-145) in the strapping position (16,17-fig.6; ¶[0005]), the strapping system having a frame (at least 20,16-fig.6), a strapping head (15-fig.6) mounted to the frame (lines 45-57), a fixed vertical track section (A-annotated fig.6) mounted to the frame, a lower track section (B-annotated fig.6) mounted to the frame below the strapping head, an upper track section (C-annotated fig.6);
advancing the upper and lower track sections (B,C-annotated fig.6) into position on opposing sides of the object with the movable track section in the first open position (lines 137-145).
Brenneisen does not teach an upper track section mounted to the frame above the strapping head and a movable track section mounted to a distal end of one of the upper or lower track sections, the movable track section movable from a first open position to a second closed position, the movable track section cooperating with the lower track section, the upper track section and the vertical track section when in the second closed position to form a chute for advancing strapping around the at least one associated object; moving the movable track section to the second closed position; advancing strapping material through the chute to surround the object; tensioning the strapping material with the strapping head; and severing the strapping material.
However, Daniel teaches an upper track section (44-fig.1) mounted to the frame (18-fig.1) above the strapping head (40-fig.1) and a movable track section (48-fig.1) mounted to a distal end of the upper track sections (see fig.1 showing 48 mounted distally via 28), the movable track section movable from a first open position (dotted line portion of fig.1) to a second closed position (solid line portion of fig.1; 3:24-44), the movable track section cooperating with the lower track section, the upper track section and the vertical track section when in the second closed position to form a chute for advancing strapping around the at least one associated object (3:24-44), wherein at least one retaining member (at least 28,36,34,32,30-fig.1) secures the moveable track section in the second closed position (3:16-44);
moving the movable track section to the second closed position (solid line portion of fig.1; 3:24-44);
advancing strapping material through the chute to surround the object (3:24-44);
tensioning the strapping material with the strapping head (4:19-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Brenneisen, by adding the movable guide track and retaining member, as taught by Daniel, to complete the guide track and ensure the wire/band always going in the same path around the object and connect with the stationary guide track.
Brenneisen as modified by Daniel does not expressly teach a strapping system comprising a frame mounted to an end effector of a robotic arm; wherein said robotic arm moves said strapping system from an initial position to a strapping position.
However, Stone teaches a strapping system (fig.2) comprising a frame (F-fig.5) mounted to an end effector of a robotic arm (E2-fig.2; ¶[0027]-[0033]); wherein said robotic arm (E2-fig.2) moves said strapping system from an initial position to a strapping position (¶[0027]-[0030]; figs. 1-5).
Brenneisen as modified by Daniel and Stone does not teach a strapping head pivotably mounted to the frame via spaced apart pivots on said frame and said strapping head tilts relative to a track section; and severing the strapping material.
PNG
media_image2.png
211
399
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Huson teaches a strapping head (at least 36,78,30a,77,38,35-figs.4-5; 7:21-48) pivotably mounted to the frame via spaced apart pivots (A-annotated fig.6) on said frame (31-fig.6) and said strapping head tilts relative to a track section (at least 36,78,30a,77,38,35-figs.4-5; 7:21-48); and severing the strapping material (6:29-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention, to modify the device of Brenneisen, Daniel, and Stone, by having a pivotable strapping head and cutting mechanism, as taught by Huson, to add tension to the strap during the strapping process and being able to cut the strapping material with the strapping device and being able to used spooled strapping material, which cuts down on cost.
Examiner notes: To overcome the present rejection in regard to the pivots, further claiming the structure of the pivots (separate, distinct, or actual physical structure) would overcome this rejection. However, would require further search and consideration to determine allowability.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenneisen (FR 2133078 A5), reference made to the Espacenet translation provided with the non-final dated 10 September 2024, in view of Daniel (US 6,553,900), Stone (US 2019/0291901), and Huson (US 3,834,297), further in view of Pierson (US 2018/0162568).
Claim 5, Brenneisen as modified by Daniel, Stone, and Huson teaches the strapping system of claim 1, wherein the retention member (Daniel: at least 28,36,34,32,30-fig.1).
Brenneisen as modified by Daniel, Stone, and Huson does not expressly teach at least one gas strut.
However, Pierson teaches a retention member is at least one gas strut (74-fig.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Brenneisen, Daniel, Stone, and Huson, by using a gas strut as a retention member, as taught by Pierson, as a well known alternative mechanism that has a cylinder and piston that moves from and extended to retracted position, commonly used to hold things opened and closed.
Claims 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenneisen (FR 2133078 A5), reference made to the Espacenet translation provided with the non-final dated 10 September 2024, in view of Stone (US 2019/0291901) and Huson (US 3,834,297).
Claim 9, Brenneisen teaches a strapping system comprising a strapping chute (20-fig.6) for advancing an associated strapping material around and object to be strapped (lines 45-57), and a strapping head (15-fig.6),
the strapping chute (20-fig.6) and the strapping head (15-fig.6) being supported by a frame (at least 20,16-fig.6) mountable to an end effector (18-fig.6).
Brenneisen does not expressly teach a strapping system comprising a frame mounted to an end effector of a robotic arm; wherein said robotic arm moves said strapping system from an initial position to a strapping position.
However, Stone teaches a strapping system (fig.2) comprising a frame (F-fig.5) mounted to an end effector of a robotic arm (E2-fig.2; ¶[0027]-[0033]); wherein said robotic arm (E2-fig.2) moves said strapping system from an initial position to a strapping position (¶[0027]-[0030]; figs. 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Brenneisen, by having the strapping machine attached to a robotic arm, as taught by Stone, to allow pallets to be strapped in multiple positions versus one specific place, thus allowing for quicker processing because the robot can make further movements in the x-y-z direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
211
399
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brenneisen as modified by Stone does not teach a strapping head is pivotally secured to the frame via spaced apart parallel pivots for tilting movement relative to the chute.
However, Huson teaches a strapping head (at least 36,78,30a,77,38,35-figs.4-5; 7:21-48) pivotably mounted to the frame via spaced apart pivots (A-annotated fig.6) on said frame (31-fig.6) and said strapping head tilts relative to a track section (at least 36,78,30a,77,38,35-figs.4-5; 7:21-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention, to modify the device of Brenneisen, Daniel, and Stone, by having a pivotable strapping head, as taught by Huson, to add tension to the strap during the strapping process.
Examiner notes: To overcome the present rejection in regard to the pivots, further claiming the structure of the pivots (separate, distinct, or actual physical structure) would overcome this rejection. However, would require further search and consideration to determine allowability.
Claim 11, Brenneisen as modified by Stone and Huson teaches the strapping system of claim 9, wherein the strapping chute (Brenneisen: 20-fig.6) includes a vertical track section (Brenneisen: A-annotated fig.6 in claim 1) mounted to the frame (Brenneisen: 16-fig.6), and wherein the strapping head (Huson: at least 77,38,35-figs.4-5) is pivotable about a non-vertical axis such that the strapping head can be tilted relative to the vertical track section (Huson: pivotable about 76 which is perpendicular to the vertical axis; 7:21-48).
Claim 12, Brenneisen as modified by Stone and Huson teaches the strapping system of claim 11, further comprising a strapping head actuator (Huson: 77-fig.4) supported by the frame (Huson:22-fig.4), the strapping head actuator operatively connected between the frame and the strapping head for effecting tilting movement of the strapping head (Huson: pivotable about 76 which is perpendicular to the vertical axis; 7:21-48).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 11-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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, Shelley Self can be reached on (571)272-4524. 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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731