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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed 11/12/2025. Claims 12-23 are currently pending. Claims 12, 14-16, 18-23 have been amended. Claims 1-11 have been previously canceled.
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.
Claims 12-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancaster (US 4302920) in view of Bugatti (US 1099587 A) and Landis (US 0771077 A).
Regarding claim 12, Lancaster discloses an unwinding apparatus associable with a wrapping machine and arranged to deliver a film (22 – Fig. 2) of extensible plastic material that is unwound from a reel (20 – Fig. 2), the unwinding apparatus comprising: a first pre-stretching roller (34 – Fig. 1) and a second pre-stretching roller (36 – Fig. 1) rotatable about respective longitudinal rotation axes (the longitudinal axes of 35 and 37, respectively) and arranged to unwind and pre-stretch the film (col. 5, lines 36-49); and a motion transmission system (50 – Fig. 1) configured to connect said first and second pre-stretching rollers to each other and transmit a rotation motion from said first-pre-stretching roller to said second pre-stretching roller with at least one defined transmission ratio (col. 6, lines 9-35), said motion transmission system comprising: at least two toothed driving wheels (38, 40, 42 – Fig. 1) having different respective number of teeth (see Fig. 1, the wheels each have a different radius from the others, hence there are different number of teeth), mounted coaxial and integral to each other (col. 6, lines 11-21), and rotated by said first pre-stretching roller (col. 6, lines 11-21); at least two toothed driven wheels (138, 140, 142 – Fig. 1) having different respective number of teeth (see Fig. 1, the wheels each have a different radius from the others, hence there are different number of teeth), mounted coaxial to said second pre-stretching roller and selectively couplable to said second pre-stretching roller (col. 6, lines 25-28), each toothed driven wheel meshing with a respective one of said toothed driving wheels in order to transmit the rotation motion of said first pre-stretching roller to said second pre-stretching roller with a corresponding transmission ratio when said toothed driven wheel is coupled to said second pre-stretching roller (col. 6, lines 25-35); and a selector device (56 – Fig. 1) that can be operated to couple one of said toothed driven wheels at a time to said second pre-stretching roller (col. 6, lines 43-54).
However, Lancaster discloses a different selector device than that which is claimed in claim 1.
Bugatti teaches a selector device comprising a driven shaft (d – Fig. 1), rotatably supporting toothed driven wheels (a, b – Fig. 1) and provided with a longitudinal internal cavity (the cavity through d – Fig. 1) having at least one first lateral through opening (f – Fig. 1) and one second lateral through opening (f’ – Fig. 1) suitable for housing respective locking elements (g, g’ – Fig. 1); and a selector pin (i – Fig. 1) sliding inside said longitudinal internal cavity (pg. 1, lines 52-57) and provided with a transverse protrusion (at h – Fig. 1), said selector pin being movable between at least a first operative position (at the position of h depicted in Fig. 1), in which said transverse protrusion abuts and pushes at least one locking element (g – Fig. 1) to protrude externally from said first lateral through opening so as to engage a first seat of a first toothed driven wheel (a – Fig. 1) to couple the toothed wheel to said driven shaft (pg. 1, lines 52-61), and a second operative position (at the position of h depicted in shadow in Fig. 1), in which the transverse protrusion abuts and pushes at least one locking element (g’ – Fig. 1) to protrude externally from said second lateral through opening so as to engage a second seat of said a second toothed driven wheel (b – Fig. 1) and to couple the second toothed driven wheel to said driven shaft (pg. 1, lines 62-67). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Bugatti, would have recognized that the selector device of Bugatti is analogous to the selector device of Lancaster since they both accomplish the same function, bringing gears into and out of engagement with each other to choose a gear ratio.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the selector device of Lancaster with the selector device of Bugatti, with minor modifications to fit the number of gears of Lancaster, since the selector device of Bugatti is a known alternative.
However, Lancaster, as modified by Bugatti, does not disclose a second transverse protrusion.
Landis teaches a similar selector device comprising a selector pin (C – Fig. 1) having a first transverse protrusion (the rightmost C2 – Fig. 1) and a second transverse protrusion (the second from right C2 – Fig. 1), wherein in a first operative position (the position of C depicted in Fig. 1), the first transverse protrusion acts on a locking element (the rightmost C’ – Fig. 1) of a first gear (6 – Fig. 1) and in a second operative position (when the second from right C2 acts on the second from right C’ – Fig. 1, pg. 1, line 86 – pg. 2, line 3), the second transverse protrusion acts on another locking element (the second from right C’ – Fig. 1) of a second gear (7 – Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Landis, would have recognized that having more than one protrusion with each protrusion matching a locking element, would have provided the benefit over the selector device of Bugatti of allowing the selector pin to be shorter and thereby require less energy to actuate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the selector pin of Lancaster and Bugatti to include the same number of protrusions as locking elements and thus a second transverse protrusion as taught by Landis in order to require less energy to actuate the selector pin.
Lancaster, as modified by Bugatti and Landis, further teaches:
Claim 13, said at least one lateral through opening (f – Fig. 1, Bugatti) and second at least one second lateral through opening (f’ – Fig. 1, Bugatti) are spaced along a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of said driven shaft (see Fig. 1, Bugatti).
Claim 14, said longitudinal internal cavity (the cavity through d – Fig. 1, Bugatti) of said driven shaft comprises a plurality of first lateral through openings (f – Fig.1, Bugatti) angularly spaced about a longitudinal axis of said driven shaft and suitable for housing respective locking elements (see Fig. 2, there are four through openings, Bugatti) and a plurality of second lateral through openings (f’ – Fig. 1, Bugatti) angularly spaced about the longitudinal axis and suitable for housing respective locking elements (see Fig. 2, there are four through openings, Bugatti).
Claim 15, said selector pin (i – Fig. 1, Bugatti) has a cylindrical shape (see Fig. 1, i is a cylindrical rod, Bugatti) and each first and second transverse protrusion (at h – fig. 1, Bugatti) comprises a conical portion (the left and right sides of h – Fig. 1, Bugatti) and a cylindrical portion (the center of h – Fig. 1, Bugatti) respectively configured to push said locking element to protrude externally from said first and second lateral through openings and to keep said locking element protruding externally from said first and second lateral through openings (see Fig. 1, Bugatti).
Claim 16, said first toothed driven wheel (one of 138, 140, 142 – Fig. 1, Lancaster corresponding to one of a or b – Fig. 1, Bugatti) and said second toothed driven wheel (another one of 138, 140, 142 – Fig. 1 Lancaster corresponding to the other one of a, b – Fig. 1, Bugatti) comprise respective central openings (the respective central hole of 138, 140, 142 – Fig. 1, Lancaster) suitable for coupling with said driven shaft (see Fig. 1 of Lancaster, 138, 140 and 142 are mounted on driven shaft 37) and are provided with a plurality respectively of first seats (e – Fig. 1, Bugatti) and second seats (e’ – Fig. 1, Bugatti) suitable for receiving said locking elements (see Fig. 1, Bugatti).
Claim 17, said selector pin (i – Fig. 1, Bugatti) is movable in an inoperative position in which said first transverse protrusion (at h – Fig. 1, Bugatti, modified to be the first of several by Landis) and said second transverse protrusion (at h – Fig. 1, Bugatti, modified to be the second of several by Landis) do not abut said locking elements (g, g’ – Fig. 1, Bugatti) and said toothed driven wheels idly rotate on said driven shaft (since the selector pin is capable of being slid to any position, it is capable of being slid to a position in which the protrusions do not engage any locking elements; this is supported by both Fig. 1 of Bugatti and Fig. 1 of Landis which appear to show enough space between locking elements for the selector pin to be slid such that the protrusions do not engage any locking element).
Claim 18, said selector pin (i – Fig. 1, Bugatti) comprises a locking assembly (the portion of the shift mechanism that provides the locking, col. 6, line 51-54, Lancaster) acting on said selector pin and configured to reversibly lock said selector pin at least in said first operative position or in said second operative position (col. 6, lines 51-54, Lancaster).
Claim 20, said selector pin (i – Fig. 1, Bugatti) further comprises a gripping end (70 – Fig. 1, Lancaster; the combination of Lancaster and Bugatti suggests the obvious minor modification of 70 of Lancaster being a gripping end of i of Bugatti) which protrudes form an access opening of said longitudinal internal cavity and is arranged opposite to said second pre-stretching roller (see Fig. 1, Lancaster).
Claim 21, a motor arranged to rotate said first pre-stretching roller (although not expressly disclosed in Lancaster, there must necessarily be a motor somewhere to allow the film to be drawn through the rollers, since this drawing of film would result in the first pre-stretching roller being rotated, the motor is interpreted to rotate said first pre-stretching roller; assuming for the sake of argument that Lancaster doesn’t necessarily require a motor, Official Notice if also being taken that it is old and well-known in the art to provide a motor for drawing a web through rollers, for example, to rotate the turntable).
Claim 22, said motion transmission system comprises a number of said toothed driven wheels (138, 140, 142 – Fig. 1, Lancaster) that is equal to a number of said toothed driving wheels (38, 40, 42 – Fig. 1, Lancaster), each toothed driven wheel engaging a specific toothed driving wheel (col. 6, lines 31-35, Lancaster).
Claim 23, said first (f – Fig. 1, Bugatti) and second (f’ – Fig. 1, Bugatti) lateral through openings are orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1, Bugatti).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancaster (US 4302920) in view of Bugatti (US 1099587 A), Landis (US 0771077 A), and Xiang (CN 103089941 A).
Regarding claim 19, Lancaster, as modified by Bugatti and Landis, teaches essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 18.
However, Lancaster, as modified by Bugatti and Landis, does not expressly teach the structure of the locking assembly.
Xiang teaches a similar invention comprising a locking assembly, where said locking assembly comprises at least one elastic pressing element (21 – Fig. 1) and at least a first (the leftmost groove of 14 – Fig. 1) and a second (the second from left groove of 14 – Fig. 1) annular groove of a selector pin (11 – Fig. 1), said elastic pressing element being configured to engage said first annular groove in a first position or said second annular groove in said second position of said selector pin (see Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Xiang, would have recognized that the locking assembly of Xiang may be used as the locking assembly of Lancaster, Bugatti, and Landis since the selector pin of Xiang is similar to the selector pin of Bugatti.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have made the locking assembly of Lancaster, Bugatti, and Landis in the manner taught by Xiang since Lancaster, Bugatti, and Landis are silent with respect to the structure of the locking assembly and Xiang provides a known solution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 12, applicant argues that Lancaster fails to disclose the claimed feature of a selector device that can be operated to couple one of the toothed driven wheels at a time to the second pre-stretching roller.
In response, it is first noted that Lancaster is not relied upon for the teaching of the selector device. The combination of Bugatti and Landis are relied upon to teach this. That said, it is noted that the selector device of Lancaster functionally works in this manner. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Regarding claim 12, applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill on in the art would not be capable of replacing the selector device of Lancaster with the selector device of Bugatti that allows the selector device to operate properly because both ends of the hollow shaft of Bugatti would be attached to an immovable element, specifically the second roller at the upper end and the bottom wall of the housing at the lower end resulting in no way to move the selector pin.
In response, it is not clear why applicant asserts that there would be no way to move the selector pin. Clearly it must be moved in some manner in Bugatti. When combined with Lancaster, there are many such ways to move the selector pin. For example, the selector pin could extend below the housing and out of the hollow shaft where it can be accessed. The examiner takes the position that the minor modifications necessary to allow the selector device of Bugatti to be used in the unwinding apparatus of Lancaster are well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner further takes the position that accommodating a way to access the selector pin is a minor modification. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 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 THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
1/9/2026