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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 09/07/2023 and 11/01/2023 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2209333.0, filed on 06/24/2022.
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-12 are pending.
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 01/02/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Unless applicant is introducing a new “braking operation” and new “different phases”, “the” can be kept in the claims since both terms were introduced in the beginning of claim 12 from applicant’s amendments. Appropriate correction is required.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 7. However, claim 7 is cancelled by applicant. The office can not determine the metes and bounds of claim 9 without knowing which claim claim 9 is dependent from. For examination purposes, claim 9 will be dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-7908822-B2 (“McClure”) in view of US-20170057680-A1 (“Schlichting”).
Regarding claim 1, McClure teaches a control system for controlling a braking operation performed by one or more operational components of an agricultural baler on a wrapping material during the different phases of a wrapping cycle, the control system comprising one or more controllers (McClure Abstract and Claim 1), and being configured to:
identify the current phase of the wrapping cycle (McClure Claim 1 “the controller configured for controlling the braking force applied by the brake device to different predetermined levels according to a braking force profile upon the initiation of a wrapping cycle, wherein the different levels are functions of discrete wrapping phases of the cycle,”);
receive data determinative of the amount of wrapping material remaining on a roll of wrapping material (McClure (32) “Characteristics of wrapping material 41 include, but are not limited to, the type of wrapping material 41 and the amount wrapping material 41 remaining on wrapping material roll 31.”);
determine, in dependence on the amount of wrapping material remaining on the roll of wrapping material, a diameter of the roll of wrapping material and a braking strategy for performing the braking operation during the current phase of the wrapping cycle, wherein the braking strategy comprises one of: increasing the braking force applied to a wrapping material; or decreasing the braking force applied to a wrapping material; or neither increasing nor decreasing the braking force applied to a wrapping material (McClure col 8 lines 25 – 30 “a full wrapping material roll 31 represented by diameter D, requires a maximum braking force, and as the diameter of wrapping material roll 31 decreases during wrapping operations, represented by diameter d, required braking force decreases proportionally”); and
generate and output one or more control signals for controlling the braking operation performed by the one or more operational components associated with the baler in dependence on the determined braking strategy (McClure Claim 1).
McClure does not teach that the control system incorporates a plurality of electronic identifiers during the different phases of a wrapping cycle, the control system comprising an electronic identification reader configured to read the plurality of electronic identifiers, and that the system is configured to receive data indicative of an electronic identifier and determinative of the amount of wrapping material remaining on a roll of wrapping material from the electronic identification reader. However, Schlichting teaches that the control system incorporates a plurality of electronic identifiers (Schlichting [0010] “RFID tags 112, 114, 116.”) during the different phases of a wrapping cycle (Schlichting [0111] “A counter counts how often the or one tag reader detects a tag on the web placed on the object surface. The number of layers or the web length is derived from the number of tag detections.”), the control system comprising an electronic identification reader configured to read the plurality of electronic identifiers (Schlichting [0010] “Every tag reader 120, 122 can detect the presence of an RFID tag 112, 114, 116 on the wrapping material 86.”), and that the system is configured to receive data indicative of an electronic identifier and determinative of the amount of wrapping material remaining on a roll of wrapping material from the electronic identification reader (Schlichting [0011] “The RFID tags and the tag readers 112, 114, 116 can further be used for monitoring the length of the web pulled from the reel. The operator can be informed how many web segments 106 are still left on a supply roll 84.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of McClure to incorporate the teachings of Schlichting such that the control system incorporates a plurality of electronic identifiers during the different phases of a wrapping cycle, the control system comprising an electronic identification reader configured to read the plurality of electronic identifiers, and that the system is configured to receive data indicative of an electronic identifier and determinative of the amount of wrapping material remaining on a roll of wrapping material from the electronic identification reader. Doing so would allow for a wrapping malfunction to automatically be detected without the need of wrapping the object in the chamber into a specific web of wrapping material (Schlichting [0018]).
Regarding claim 3, McClure as modified by Schlichting teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. McClure further discloses that the control system further comprises a user interface operable to communicate information indicative of the determined braking strategy to an operator of the agricultural baler (McClure col 8 lines 32 – 42 “In yet another preferred embodiment of the invention, a plurality of the braking force profiles associated with a plurality of the wrapping material characteristics, respectively, is stored in a memory device. These profiles can be associated with characteristics such as the type of wrapping material, amount of material on the roll, and the like. These profiles can be selected by the operator via interactive display 65, or controller 61 can automatically access the memory device and select an appropriate braking force profile based on present wrapping material characteristics as sensed or determined.”).
Regarding claim 4, McClure as modified by Schlichting teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. McClure further discloses that the control system is configured to generate and output the one or more control signals for controlling operation of the user interface to communicate the information indicative of the determined braking strategy to an operator of the agricultural baler (McClure col 8 lines 32 – 42 “In yet another preferred embodiment of the invention, a plurality of the braking force profiles associated with a plurality of the wrapping material characteristics, respectively, is stored in a memory device. These profiles can be associated with characteristics such as the type of wrapping material, amount of material on the roll, and the like. These profiles can be selected by the operator via interactive display 65, or controller 61 can automatically access the memory device and select an appropriate braking force profile based on present wrapping material characteristics as sensed or determined.”).
Regarding claim 5, McClure as modified by Schlichting teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. McClure further discloses that the one or more operational components for controlling the braking operation further comprises a electrically controlled braking apparatus for operation in accordance with the determined braking strategy (McClure Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, McClure as modified by Schlichting teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. McClure further discloses that the control system is configured to generate and output the one or more control signals for automatically controlling the electrically controlled braking apparatus to apply a desired braking force to the wrapping material during the wrapping cycle (McClure col 8 lines 43 – 50 “brake device 60 may be realized by an electric brake. In a preferred embodiment, it is mounted on wrapping material roll mount 33 and controlled by controller 61. Power is supplied to electric brake 60 at a switch 59 to supply current to a magnet 63 in communication with an armature 62 to set a resistance of rotation of wrapping material roll 31 in response to controller 61 according to stored or programmed braking profiles.”).
Regarding claim 9, McClure as modified by Schlichting teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Schlichting further discloses that the electronic identification reader is mounted or otherwise coupled to the agricultural baler and configured to monitor electronic identifiers passing into a baling chamber of the agricultural baler (Schlichting [0010] “An RFID tag reader 120 is mounted at an upper rear location of the frame 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Schlichting to McClure as modified by Schlichting such that the electronic identification system is mounted or otherwise coupled to the agricultural baler and configured to monitor electronic identifiers passing into a baling chamber of the agricultural baler. Doing so would allow for a wrapping malfunction to automatically be detected without the need of wrapping the object in the chamber into a specific web of wrapping material (Schlichting [0018]).
Regarding claim 10, McClure as modified by Schlichting teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. McClure further discloses a system for controlling a braking operation performed by one or more controllable components of an agricultural baler on a wrapping material, comprises (McClure Abstract and Claim 1):
an electrically controlled braking apparatus for applying a desired braking force to a wrapping material passing into a baling chamber of an agricultural baler (McClure Fig. 8 and col 8 lines 43 – 50 “brake device 60 may be realized by an electric brake. In a preferred embodiment, it is mounted on wrapping material roll mount 33 and controlled by controller 61. Power is supplied to electric brake 60 at a switch 59 to supply current to a magnet 63 in communication with an armature 62 to set a resistance of rotation of wrapping material roll 31 in response to controller 61 according to stored or programmed braking profiles.”);
and a control system according to claim 1 configured to control operation of the electrically controlled braking apparatus and/or the wrapping apparatus in accordance with a determined braking strategy (McClure Claim 1 and col 8 lines 25 – 30 “a full wrapping material roll 31 represented by diameter D, requires a maximum braking force, and as the diameter of wrapping material roll 31 decreases during wrapping operations, represented by diameter d, required braking force decreases proportionally”).
Regarding claim 11, McClure as modified by Schlichting teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. McClure further discloses an agricultural baler comprising the system of claim 10 (McClure Fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 1. The system taught/disclosed in claim 1 can clearly perform the method of claim 12. Therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 01/02/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 7-8 have been cancelled, not claims 6-7 from applicant’s remarks.
With respect to the drawing objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim objections appear on the record as stated in the above Office Action.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the above Office Action.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666