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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s RCE filing on 04/23/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-15 and 19 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 16-18 and 20-42 are pending and examined below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 04/30/2025 is acknowledged.
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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lancaster, III et al. (8,979,466)(referred Lancaster '466) in view of reference Lancaster, III et al. (2005/0138897)(referred Lancaster '897).
Regarding claim 16, Lancaster ‘466 disclose a pallet wrapping system (10) comprising:
a pallet wrapper (12) configured to wrap plastic wrap around a plurality of items stacked on a pallet (16);
a wrapper conveyor (14) configured to move a pallet (16) through the pallet wrapper (12);
an infeed conveyor (see figure 2 below);
a transfer conveyor (see figure 2 below) configured to transport pallets (16) to the wrapper conveyor (14),
wherein the transfer conveyor (see figure 2 below) is configured to raise the pallets up to the wrapper conveyor;
an outfeed conveyor (131) configured to receive pallets from the wrapper conveyor (14).
(Figure 2, 7 and Column 8 lines 34-40, 50-54, Column 10 lines 18-21, 29-30, Column 12 lines 45-47, Column 15 lines 33-35)
[AltContent: textbox (Transfer Conveyor)][AltContent: textbox (Infeed Conveyor)][AltContent: textbox (Lancaster ‘466)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
473
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Figure 7 and column 12 lines 45-47, Lancaster ‘466 disclose the transfer conveyor and the infeed conveyor are inclined. Therefore, Lancaster ‘466 is interpreted to disclose the transfer conveyor is configured to raise the pallets up to the wrapper conveyor.
However, Lancaster ‘466 do not disclose an infeed queue conveyor configured to receive pallets from the infeed conveyor.
Lancaster ‘897 disclose a pallet wrapping system (200) comprising: a wrapper conveyor (230); an infeed queue conveyor (225); and an outfeed queue conveyor (235). (Figure 11A and Page 4 paragraph 56, Page 6 paragraph 72, Page 7 paragraph 79)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the system of Lancaster ‘466 by incorporating the infeed queue conveyor and the outfeed queue conveyor as taught by Lancaster ‘897, since page 1 paragraph 3 of Lancaster ‘897 states such a modification would allow the accumulation of pallets on the conveyor.
Regarding claim 17, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Lancaster ‘897 disclose an outfeed queue conveyor (Lancaster ‘897 – 235) configured to receive pallets (Lancaster ‘466 – 16) from the wrapper conveyor (Lancaster ‘466 – 14), wherein the outfeed conveyor (Lancaster ‘466 – 131) is configured to receive pallets (Lancaster ‘466 – 16) from the outfeed queue conveyor (Lancaster ‘897 – 235). (Lancaster ‘897 – Page 4 paragraph 56)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lancaster, III et al. (8,979,466)(referred Lancaster '466) in view of reference Lancaster, III et al. (2005/0138897)(referred Lancaster '897) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of reference Macleod et al. (7,770,366).
Regarding claim 18, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Lancaster ‘897 disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a weigh conveyor.
Macleod et al. disclose a pallet system comprising: operating station (14); and a weighing conveyor (18), wherein the weighing conveyor is downstream of the operating station (14). (Figure 1 and Column 5 lines 46-53)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the system of Lancaster ‘466 by incorporating the weighing conveyor as taught by Macleod et al., since column 5 lines 53-55 of Macleod et al. states such a modification would allow the user to know the final weight of the pallet.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lancaster, III et al. (8,979,466)(referred Lancaster '466) in view of reference Lancaster, III et al. (2005/0138897)(referred Lancaster '897) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of reference Martin, Jr. et al. (11,046,519)(referred Martin).
Regarding claim 20, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Lancaster ‘897 disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose at least one camera.
Martin discloses a pallet wrapping system comprising: a pallet wrapper (66a); at least one camera (68) configured to take at least one image of packages (20) stacked on a pallet (22); and at least one computer (26, 74) configured to identify SKUs of the packages (20) stacked on the pallet (22) based upon the at least one image. (Figure 4 and Column 5 lines 27-30, 53-57, Column 6 lines 58-60)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the system of Lancaster ‘466 by incorporating the camera and computer as taught by Martin, since column 2 lines 3-8 of Martin states such a modification would allow better record of the items on stacked on the pallet.
Regarding claim 21, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Lancaster ‘897 and Martin disclose the at least one camera (Martin – 68) is secured to the pallet wrapper (Lancaster ‘466 – 12). (Martin – Figure 4 and Column 5 lines 35-37)
Regarding claim 22, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Lancaster ‘897 and Martin disclose the at least one camera (Martin – 68) includes a plurality of cameras. (Martin – Column 6 lines 43-55, Column 11 lines 24-28)
Claims 29-35 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lancaster, III et al. (8,979,466)(referred Lancaster '466) in view of reference Berger et al. (5,515,66).
Regarding claim 29, Lancaster ‘466 disclose a pallet wrapping system (10) comprising:
a pallet wrapper (12) configured to wrap plastic wrap around a plurality of items stacked on a pallet (16);
a wrapper conveyor (14) configured to move a pallet (16) through the pallet wrapper (12);
an infeed conveyor (70) configured to transport pallets (16) to the wrapper conveyor (14); and
an outfeed conveyor (131) configured to receive pallets from the wrapper conveyor (14),
wherein the infeed conveyor (70) includes an upper floor (92, 94) between a plurality of conveying (76, 78, 96) spaced apart from one another,
wherein the plurality of conveying surfaces (76, 78, 96) includes three conveying surfaces, and
wherein the uppermost surface of the upper floor (92, 94) is lower than an uppermost surface of the plurality of conveying surfaces (76, 78, 96) and higher than the returning portion of the plurality of conveying surfaces (76, 78, 96).
(Figure 36-37 and Column 8 lines 34-40, 50-54, Column 10 lines 18-21, 29-30, Column 13 lines 66-67 through Column 14 line 1, Column 15 lines 33-35)
However, Lancaster ‘466 do not disclose three active conveying surfaces.
Berger et al. disclose an infeed conveyor (193) configured to transfer pallets to a downstream station, wherein the infeed conveyor (193) comprises three active conveying surfaces (221, 223, 225) spaced apart from each other. (Figure 7, 8 and Column 9 lines 21-29)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the plurality of conveying of Lancaster ‘466 by incorporating the three active conveying surfaces as taught by Berger et al., since column 4 lines 41-47 of Berger et al. states such a modification would allow the motor to operatively engage with each conveying surface and drive each conveying surface.
Regarding claim 30, Lancaster ‘466 disclose uppermost surface of the plurality of conveying surfaces (76, 78) are slightly higher than the uppermost surface of the upper floor (68). (Column 10 lines 58-60) Lancaster ‘466 also disclose that such an arrangement ensures the fork of the pallet truck does not damage the infeed conveyor. (Column 10 lines 60-64)
However, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. do not disclose the uppermost surface of the plurality of conveying surfaces are approximately ½” higher than the uppermost surface of the upper floor.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the uppermost surface of the plurality of conveying surfaces are approximately ½” higher than the uppermost surface of the upper floor, 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. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 12 paragraph 62 of applicant’s specification, the uppermost surface of the upper floor is recessed approximately ½” relative to the uppermost surface of the drag chain. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Lancaster ‘466 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 30, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 31, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. disclose the three active conveying surfaces (Berger et al. – 221, 223, 225) includes three of drag chains. (Berger et al. – Column 9 lines 21-23)
Regarding claim 32, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. disclose the uppermost surface of the upper floor (68) intersects the thickness of the three active conveying surfaces (Berger et al. – 221, 223, 225). (Lancaster ‘466 – Figure 37)
Regarding claim 33, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. disclose an adjacent portion (Lancaster ‘466 – see figure 37 below) having an upper support surface substantially flush with the uppermost surface of the upper floor (92, 94). (Lancaster ‘466 – Figure 37)
[AltContent: textbox (Adjacent Portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Lancaster ‘466)]
PNG
media_image2.png
546
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. disclose the upper support surface of the adjacent portion (Lancaster ‘466 – see figure 37 above) is planar and in the same plane as the uppermost surface of the upper floor (Lancaster ‘466 – 92, 94). (Lancaster ‘466 – Column 13 lines 35-39)
Regarding claim 35, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. disclose the adjacent portion (Lancaster ‘466 – see figure 37 above) is a leading portion and is at least 5 feet long. (Lancaster ‘466 – Column 13 lines 41-47)
Regarding claim 38, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. disclose the uppermost surfaces of the three active conveying surfaces (Berger et al. – 221, 223, 225) move away from the adjacent portion (Lancaster ‘466 – see figure 37 above). (Lancaster ‘466 – Column 14 lines 51-53)
Regarding claim 39, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. disclose the three active conveying surfaces (Berger et al. – 221, 223, 225) includes three drag chains. (Berger et al. – Column 9 lines 21-23)
Regarding claim 40, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. disclose the uppermost surface of the upper floor (Lancaster ‘466 – 68) intersects the thickness of the three active conveying surfaces (Berger et al. – 221, 223, 225). (Lancaster ‘466 – Figure 37)
Regarding claim 41, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. disclose the three drag chains includes two outer chains (Berger et al. – 221, 223) and a center drag chain (Berger et al. – 225) spaced between the two outer drag chains (Berger et al. – 221, 223). (Berger et al. – Figure 7)
Claims 36-37 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lancaster, III et al. (8,979,466)(referred Lancaster '466) in view of reference Berger et al. (5,515,66) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of reference Lancaster, III et al. (2005/0138897)(referred Lancaster '897).
Regarding claim 36, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a nestable pallet board having feet.
Lancaster ‘897 disclose a pallet wrapping system (200) configured to receive at least one nestable pallet (Figure 4) having feet and a base board pallet (Figure 2) supported on the plurality of conveying surfaces (111). (Figure 2-4 and Page 1 paragraph 6, Page 4 paragraph 57)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified system of Lancaster ‘466 by incorporating the use of a different type of pallet as taught by Lancaster ‘897, since page 1 paragraph 6 of Lancaster ‘897 states such a modification would allow the system operate with the several well-known pallet types.
Regarding claim 37, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. and Lancaster ‘897 disclose the pallet wrapping system (Lancaster ‘466 – 10) is further configured to receive at least one base board pallet (Lancaster ‘897 – Figure 2) supported on each of the three active conveying surfaces (Berger et al. – 221, 223, 225). (Lancaster ‘897 – Figure 2 and Page 1 paragraph 6)
Regarding claim 42, Lancaster ‘466 modified by Berger et al. and Lancaster ‘897 disclose a nestable pallet (Lancaster ‘897 – Figure 4) having a plurality of feet, each of the feet supported on one of the three drag chains. (Lancaster ‘466 – Column 13 lines 66-67 through Column 14 line 1, Column 14 lines 35-39) (Lancaster ‘897 – Figure 4 and Page 1 paragraph 6)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-28 are allowed.
Upon examination, the art considered as whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious the indicated claims.
Claim 23 is considered allowable for disclosing a pallet wrapping apparatus comprising: a first pallet wrapping system; and a second pallet wrapping system, wherein the first pallet wrapper is positioned adjacent the second outfeed queue conveyor, and wherein the second pallet wrapper is positioned adjacent the first infeed queue conveyor.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 04/23/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-15 and 19 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 16-18 and 20-42 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with reference Lancaster, III et al. (8,979,466), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 102 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of reference Berger et al. (5,515,66)
Applicant states:
However, the specification does explain the criticality of claim 30 in paragraph [0064]
On page 13 paragraph 64 of the Specification, the base boards are disclosed to be elevated above the upper floor in order to allow the tines to be rolled out from below the base board pallet. The criticality disclosed pertains to having the feature of elevated base boards, not to the feature of having approximately ½” relative distance. The Specification does not provide criticality for having the uppermost surface of the upper floor recessed approximately ½” relative to the uppermost surface of the conveying surfaces.
In column 10 lines 58-60 of Lancaster ‘466, the uppermost surface of the plurality of conveying surfaces (76, 78) is disclosed to be slightly higher than the uppermost surface of the upper floor (68). In column 10 lines 60-64 of Lancaster ‘466, the feature of having the space between the plurality of conveying surfaces slightly higher than the uppermost surface of the upper floor is disclosed to be critical because Lancaster ‘466 disclose the arrangement would ensure the fork of the pallet truck does not damage the infeed conveyor. This criticality is the similar to the criticality as disclosed on page 13 paragraph 64 of the present Specification.
Applicant states:
Neither Lancaster ‘466 nor Lancaster ‘897 ever mention a nestable pallet in combination with three drag chains, much less the precise arrangement in which each foot of the nestable pallet rests on a separate drag chain (one foot per chain).
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., one foot per chain) 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 42 discloses “a nestable pallet having a plurality of feet, each of the plurality of feet supported on one of the three drag chains”. Claim 42 does not disclose one foot per chain.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Lancaster ‘897 is not relied upon for the teaching of three drag chains. Lancaster ‘897 is relied upon for the teaching of using a nestable pallet having feet that are supported on a plurality of conveying surfaces. In the current rejections, Lancaster ‘466 is relied upon for the teaching of a pallet wrapping system comprising an infeed conveyor including three conveying surfaces. In the current rejections, Berger et al. is relied upon for the teaching of an infeed conveyor having three active drag chains. Therefore, when modifying Lancaster ‘466 in view of Berger et al. and Lancaster ‘897, the packet system is interpreted to use nestable pallets with a plurality of feet, wherein the feet of the nestable pallet is supported on one of the three drag chains.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 with reference Lancaster, III et al. (8,979,466) modified by reference Porter et al. (7,963,086), the arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 July 24, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights