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 amendment filing on 08/28/2025.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2-3 and 24-25 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1, 4-23, and 26-44 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 21 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lancaster, III et al. (2022/0002012)(referred as Lancaster) in view of references Gao et al. (10,227,988) and Studebaker (7,007,403).
Regarding claim 21, Lancaster disclose a method of wrapping a load (302), the method comprising the steps of:
dispensing a web of packaging material (160) to the load (302) with a packaging material dispenser (304);
generating relative rotation between the packaging material dispenser (304) and the load (302) about a center of rotation to wrap the web of packaging material (160) around the load (302);
severing the web of packaging material (160) to form a packaging material tail (106) extending from a corner of the load (302); and
directing a flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (106) from a position adjacent to a side of the load (302) to increase adherence of the packaging material tail (106) to the side of the load (302),
wherein directing the flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (106) includes generating the flow of the fluid to engage the packaging material tail (106) throughout a target area that is substantially upstream of an end of the packaging material tail (106).
(Figure 9 and Page 1 paragraph 9, Page 7 paragraph 63, Page 8 paragraph 74)
However, Lancaster do not disclose a flow device configured to direct the flow of fluid with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour, wherein the flow of fluid establishes a first lateral fluid flow and a second lateral fluid flow with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour at least 18 inches from a central axis.
Gao et al. disclose a flow stabilized high speed fan blower configured to generate a velocity of at least 50 miles per hour. (Column 14 lines 45-49)
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 flow of the fluid of Lancaster by incorporating the fan blower as taught as Gao et al., since column 12 lines 53-56 and column 14 lines 45-49 of Gao et al. states such a modification would provide the necessary force to push the target area.
Studebaker discloses a flow device (100) configured to direct a flow of fluid toward a surface (floor) to establish a first lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 below) along the side of the surface (floor), and a second lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 below) along the side of the surface (floor) in the opposite direction from the first lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 below), wherein the flow device (100) is configured to direct the flow of fluid toward the surface (floor) with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour throughout a target area, and with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour for each of the first and second lateral fluid flows (see figure 9 below) at least 18 inches form a central axis of the fluid flow column. (Figures 9, 13 and Column 8 lines 58-67, Column 11 lines 16-23)
[AltContent: textbox (First Lateral Fluid Flow)][AltContent: textbox (Second Lateral Fluid Flow)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Studebaker)]
PNG
media_image1.png
556
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Figure 13 of Studebaker, the velocity at the fluid flow column is 31.8 mph, the velocity at 12 inches is 22.9 mph, and the velocity at 24 inches is 18.5 mph. Therefore, the velocity of the lateral fluid flow at 18 inches is interpreted as 20.7 mph.
When viewing Lancaster and Gao et al. in view of Studebaker, it is inherent that the flow of fluid directed toward the side of the load will establish a first and second lateral fluid flows, wherein the flow of fluid towards the load has a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour throughout the target area, and wherein the first and second lateral fluid flow has a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour at least 18 inches form a central axis of the fluid flow column.
Regarding claim 42, Lancaster modified by Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow device is configured to generate lateral fluid flow of at least 20 miles per hour in all directions at least 18 inches from the central axis of the fluid flow column. (Gao et al. – Column 14 lines 45-49) (Studebaker – Figure 13 and Column 8 lines 58-67)
Claims 1, 4-15, 17-20, 22-23, 26-36, 38-41, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lancaster, III et al. (2022/0002012)(referred as Lancaster) in view of references Shulman (4,152,879), Gao et al. (10,227,988), and Studebaker (7,007,403).
Regarding claim 1, Lancaster discloses a method of wrapping a load (302), the method comprising the steps of:
while the load (302) is disposed in a wrap position, dispensing a web of packaging material (160) to the load (302) with a packaging material dispenser (304);
generating relative rotation between the packaging material dispenser (304) and the load (302) about a center of rotation to wrap the web of packaging material (160) around the load (302);
while the load (302) is disposed in a wrap position, severing the web of packaging material (160) to form a packaging material tail (106) extending from a corner of the load (302); and
moving the load (302) away from the wrap position after severing the web of packaging material (160).
(Figure 9 and Page 1 paragraph 9, Page 7 paragraph 64, 65, Page 8 paragraph 74)
However, Lancaster do not disclose the step of directing a flow of fluid towards the package material tail after moving the load away from the wrap position, wherein the flow device is configured to direct the flow of fluid with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour, wherein the flow of fluid establishes a first lateral fluid flow and a second lateral fluid flow with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour at least 18 inches from a central axis.
Shulman discloses a method of wrapping a load (12), the method comprising:
dispensing a web of packaging material (55) to the load (12) with a packaging material dispenser (30);
generating relative rotation between the packaging material dispenser (30) and the load (12) about an axis of rotation to wrap the web of packaging material around the load (12);
severing the web of packaging material (55) to foam a packaging material tail (60) extending from a corner of the load (12);
moving the load away from the wrap position (16) after severing the web of packaging material (55); and
after moving the load (12) away from the wrap position (16), directing a flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (60) from a position adjacent to a side of the load to increase adherence of the packaging material tail (60) to the side of the load (12).
(Figure 4 and Column 2 lines 43-48, 59-61, Column 3 lines 52-63, Column 4 lines 25-28, Column 6 lines 3-9)
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 method of Lancaster by incorporating the step of directing a flow of fluid towards the package material tail after moving the load away from the wrap position as taught by Shulman, since column 6 lines 3-9 of Shulman states such a modification would shrivel the tail and help stick the tail to the load.
Gao et al. disclose a flow stabilized high speed fan blower configured to generate a velocity of at least 50 miles per hour. (Column 14 lines 45-49)
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 fan blower of Shulman, incorporated into Lancaster, by further incorporating the fan blower as taught as Gao et al., since column 12 lines 53-56 and column 14 lines 45-49 of Gao et al. states such a modification would provide the necessary force to push the target area.
Studebaker discloses a flow device (100) configured to direct a flow of fluid toward a surface (floor) to establish a first lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 above) along the side of the surface (floor), and a second lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 above) along the side of the surface (floor) in the opposite direction from the first lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 above), wherein the flow device (100) is configured to direct the flow of fluid toward the surface (floor) with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour throughout a target area, and with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour for each of the first and second lateral fluid flows (see figure 9 above) at least 18 inches form a central axis of the fluid flow column. (Figures 9, 13 and Column 8 lines 58-67, Column 11 lines 16-23)
In Figure 13 of Studebaker, the velocity at the fluid flow column is 31.8 mph, the velocity at 12 inches is 22.9 mph, and the velocity at 24 inches is 18.5 mph. Therefore, the velocity of the lateral fluid flow at 18 inches is interpreted as 20.7 mph.
When viewing Lancaster, Shulman, and Gao et al. in view of Studebaker, it is inherent that the flow of fluid directed toward the side of the load will establish a first and second lateral fluid flows, wherein the flow of fluid towards the load has a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour throughout the target area, and wherein the first and second lateral fluid flow has a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour at least 18 inches form a central axis of the fluid flow column.
Regarding claim 4, Lancaster discloses the target area is upstream of the end of the packaging material tail (106). (Page 7 paragraph 63)
However, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose do not disclose the target area is at least 2 inches upstream.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art would have the target area at least 2 inches upstream, since it has been held that were the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 4 paragraph 11 of the Specification, the target area is disclosed to be at least 2 inches upstream of the end of the packaging material tail. 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, Shulman, and Gao et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow device (Shulman – 68) is configured to direct the flow of the fluid towards the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) at an angle relative to the side of the load (Lancaster – 302). (Lancaster – Page 8 paragraph 76)
Regarding claim 6, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the angle is substantially orthogonal relative to the side of the load (Lancaster – 302). (Lancaster – Page 8 paragraph 76)
Regarding claim 7, Lancaster discloses the angle is substantially orthogonal relative to the side of the load (302). (Page 8 paragraph 76) Lancaster also disclose other directions may be used. This implies that other angles may be used.
However, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose do not explicitly disclose the angle is an acute angle greater than 45 degrees.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art would have the angle is an acute angle greater than 45 degrees, since it has been held that were the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 7 paragraph 22 of the Specification, the angle is disclosed to be substantially orthogonal or an acute angle of greater than 45 degrees. 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, Shulman, Gao et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose flow device comprises a flow stabilized high speed fan blower (Shulman – 68) configured to generate the flow of fluid to have a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour proximate an outlet of the flow stabilized high speed fan blower (Shulman – 68). (Gao et al. – Column 14 lines 45-49)
Regarding claim 9, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow stabilized high speed fan blower (Shulman – 68) is configured to generate the flow of fluid to have a velocity of at least 50 miles per hour proximate an outlet of the flow stabilized high speed fan blower (Shulman – 68). (Gao et al. – Column 14 lines 45-49)
Regarding claim 10, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow stabilized high speed fan blower (Shulman – 68) is positioned less than 12 inches from the side of the load when generating the flow of fluid. (Studebaker – Column 11 lines 16-23)
Regarding claim 11, Shulman discloses the flow device includes an outlet (70). (Column 6 lines 3-9)
However, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker do not disclose the outlet has a vertically-oriented flat profile.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the outlet include a vertically-oriented flat profile, since it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice absent of persuasive evidence that the particular change is significant. [MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)]
On page 8 paragraph 23 of the Specification, the fan blower is disclosed to include an outlet with a vertically-oriented flat profile. 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, Shulman, and Gao et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose a flow stabilized high speed fan blower comprising:
a housing (Gao et al. – 400) extending along the longitudinal axis (Gao et al. – 101) between an inlet (Gao et al. – see figure 2 below) and an outlet (Gao et al. – see figure 2 below);
an axial fan blade (Gao et al. – 500) disposed in the housing (Gao et al. – 400) and configured to rotate about the longitudinal axis (Gao et al. – 101);
a fan motor (Gao et al. – 300) coupled to the axial fan blade (Gao et al. – 500) and configured to rotate the axial fan blade about the longitudinal axis (Gao et al. – 101) at a rate at or greater than 10,000 RPM; and
a plurality of stabilizing vanes (Gao et al. – 402) extending between the axial fan blade (Gao et al. – 500) and the outlet (Gao et al. – see figure 2 below) of the housing (Gao et al. – 400) and configured to stabilize fluid flow downstream of the axial fan blade (Gao et al. – 500).
(Gao et al. – Figures 2, 6 and Column 6 lines 5-10, 42-51, Column 7 lines 32-35, Column 11 lines 25-27)
[AltContent: textbox (Inlet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Outlet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Gao et al.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
386
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose moving the load (Lancaster – 302) away from the wrap position after severing the web of packaging material (Lancaster – 160) including moving the load (Lancaster – 302) on a conveyor (Shulman – 22). (Shulman – Figure 4 and Column 5 lines 56-61, Column 6 lines 3-9)
Regarding claim 14, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow device (Shulman – 68) is disposed adjacent to the conveyor (Shulman – 22). (Shulman – Figure 4)
Regarding claim 15, Lancaster discloses the flow of fluid is applied to the packaging material tail includes multiple pulses or blasts. (Page 6 paragraph 50) In order for the flow device to be configured to apply multiple pulses, the flow device would have to remain stationary relative to the load for a duration of time.
Therefore, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker is interpreted to disclose the steps of:
pausing movement of the conveyor (Shulman – 22) after moving the load (Lancaster – 302) away from the wrap position when the load (Lancaster – 302) has reached a predetermined position relative to the flow device (Shulman – 68),
wherein directing the flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) is performed while movement of the conveyor is paused; and
resuming movement of the conveyor (Shulman – 22) after directing the flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106).
Regarding claim 17, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow of fluid is a third flow of fluid, wherein the method further comprising the steps of:
after severing the web of packaging material (Lancaster – 160) and while the load (Lancaster – 302) is still in the wrap position, directing a first flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) from a position generally upstream of a free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) and at an acute angle relative to the side of the load (Lancaster – 302) while the free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) is unsupported to cause the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) to come into contact with the side of the load (Lancaster – 302); and
once the free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) comes into contact with the side of the load (Lancaster – 302) and while the load (Lancaster – 302) is still in the wrap position, directing a second flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) at a second angle relative to the side of the load that is substantially orthogonal relative to the side of the load.
(Lancaster – Page 2 paragraph 15)
Regarding claim 18, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow of fluid is a second flow of fluid, wherein the method further comprising the steps of: after severing the web of packaging material (Lancaster – 160) and while the load (Lancaster – 302) is still in the wrap position, directing a first flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) from a position generally upstream of a free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) and at an acute angle relative to the side of the load (Lancaster – 302) while the free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) is unsupported to cause the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) to come into contact with the side of the load (Lancaster – 302). (Lancaster – Page 8 paragraph 77)
Regarding claim 19, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose, once the free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) comes into contact with the side of the load (Lancaster – 302) and while the load (Lancaster – 302) is still in the wrap position, mechanically wiping the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) against the side of the load (Lancaster – 302). (Lancaster – Page 8 paragraph 77)
Regarding claim 20, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow of fluid includes heated air. (Shulman – Column 6 lines 3-9)
Regarding claim 22, Lancaster discloses an apparatus for adhering a packaging material tail (60) to a load (302) after a web of packaging material (160) is wrapped around the load (302) while the load is disposed in a wrap position and a packaging material tail (106) is formed by severing the web of packaging material while the load (302) is in the wrap position. (Figure 9 and Page 1 paragraph 9, Page 7 paragraph 64, 65, Page 8 paragraph 74)
However, Lancaster do not disclose: a conveyor configured to move the load away from the wrap position; and a flow device positioned downstream of the wrap position, wherein the flow device configured to direct the flow of fluid with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour, wherein the flow of fluid establishes a first lateral fluid flow and a second lateral fluid flow with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour at least 18 inches from a central axis.
Shulman discloses an apparatus comprises:
a conveyor (22) configured to move the load (12) away from the wrap position (16); and
a flow device (68) positioned downstream of the wrap position and configured to direct a flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (60) from a position adjacent to a side of the load (12) after the load (12) has been moved away from the wrap position (16) by the conveyor (22) to increase adherence of the packaging material tail (60) to the side of the load (12).
(Figure 4 and Column 5 lines 56-61, Column 6 lines 3-9)
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 method of Lancaster by incorporating the conveyor and the flow device positioned downstream of the wrap position as taught by Shulman, since column 6 lines 3-9 of Shulman states such a modification would shrivel the tail and help stick the tail to the load.
Gao et al. disclose a flow stabilized high speed fan blower configured to generate a velocity of at least 50 miles per hour. (Column 14 lines 45-49)
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 fan blower of Shulman, incorporated into Lancaster, by further incorporating the fan blower as taught as Gao et al., since column 12 lines 53-56 and column 14 lines 45-49 of Gao et al. states such a modification would provide the necessary force to push the target area.
Studebaker discloses a flow device (100) configured to direct a flow of fluid toward a surface (floor) to establish a first lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 above) along the side of the surface (floor), and a second lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 above) along the side of the surface (floor) in the opposite direction from the first lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 above), wherein the flow device (100) is configured to direct the flow of fluid toward the surface (floor) with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour throughout a target area, and with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour for each of the first and second lateral fluid flows (see figure 9 above) at least 18 inches form a central axis of the fluid flow column. (Figures 9, 13 and Column 8 lines 58-67, Column 11 lines 16-23)
In Figure 13 of Studebaker, the velocity at the fluid flow column is 31.8 mph, the velocity at 12 inches is 22.9 mph, and the velocity at 24 inches is 18.5 mph. Therefore, the velocity of the lateral fluid flow at 18 inches is interpreted as 20.7 mph.
When viewing Lancaster, Shulman, and Gao et al. in view of Studebaker, it is inherent that the flow of fluid directed toward the side of the load will establish a first and second lateral fluid flows, wherein the flow of fluid towards the load has a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour throughout the target area, and wherein the first and second lateral fluid flow has a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour at least 18 inches form a central axis of the fluid flow column.
Regarding claim 23, Lancaster discloses an apparatus (300) for wrapping a load (302), the apparatus (300) comprising:
a packaging material dispenser (304) configured to dispense a web of packaging material (160) to the load (302) while the load (302) is disposed in a wrap position;
a rotational drive (pg. 1 para 9) configured to generate relative rotation between the packaging material dispenser (304) and the load (302) about an axis of rotation while the load (302) is disposed in the wrap position;
a cutting assembly (314) configured to sever the web of packaging material (160) to form a packaging material tail (106) extending from a corner of the load (302) while the load is disposed in the wrap position.
(Figure 9 and Page 1 paragraph 9, Page 7 paragraph 64, 65, Page 8 paragraph 74)
However, Lancaster do not disclose a flow device positioned downstream of the wrap position, wherein the flow device configured to direct the flow of fluid with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour, wherein the flow of fluid establishes a first lateral fluid flow and a second lateral fluid flow with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour at least 18 inches from a central axis.
Shulman discloses an apparatus comprises: a flow device (68) positioned downstream of the wrap position and configured to direct a flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (60) from a position adjacent to a side of the load (12) after the load (12) has been moved away from the wrap position (16) by the conveyor (22) to increase adherence of the packaging material tail (60) to the side of the load (12). (Figure 4 and Column 5 lines 56-61, Column 6 lines 3-9)
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 method of Lancaster by incorporating the flow device positioned downstream of the wrap position as taught by Shulman, since column 6 lines 3-9 of Shulman states such a modification would shrivel the tail and help stick the tail to the load.
Gao et al. disclose a flow stabilized high speed fan blower configured to generate a velocity of at least 50 miles per hour. (Column 14 lines 45-49)
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 fan blower of Shulman, incorporated into Lancaster, by further incorporating the fan blower as taught as Gao et al., since column 12 lines 53-56 and column 14 lines 45-49 of Gao et al. states such a modification would provide the necessary force to push the target area.
Studebaker discloses a flow device (100) configured to direct a flow of fluid toward a surface (floor) to establish a first lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 above) along the side of the surface (floor), and a second lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 above) along the side of the surface (floor) in the opposite direction from the first lateral fluid flow (see figure 9 above), wherein the flow device (100) is configured to direct the flow of fluid toward the surface (floor) with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour throughout a target area, and with a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour for each of the first and second lateral fluid flows (see figure 9 above) at least 18 inches form a central axis of the fluid flow column. (Figures 9, 13 and Column 8 lines 58-67, Column 11 lines 16-23)
In Figure 13 of Studebaker, the velocity at the fluid flow column is 31.8 mph, the velocity at 12 inches is 22.9 mph, and the velocity at 24 inches is 18.5 mph. Therefore, the velocity of the lateral fluid flow at 18 inches is interpreted as 20.7 mph.
When viewing Lancaster, Shulman, and Gao et al. in view of Studebaker, it is inherent that the flow of fluid directed toward the side of the load will establish a first and second lateral fluid flows, wherein the flow of fluid towards the load has a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour throughout the target area, and wherein the first and second lateral fluid flow has a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour at least 18 inches form a central axis of the fluid flow column.
Regarding claim 26, Lancaster discloses the target area is upstream of the end of the packaging material tail (106). (Page 7 paragraph 63)
However, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker do not disclose the target area is at least 2 inches upstream.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art would have the target area at least 2 inches upstream, since it has been held that were the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 4 paragraph 11 of the Specification, the target area is disclosed to be at least 2 inches upstream of the end of the packaging material tail. 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, Shulman, and Gao et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 27, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the angle is substantially orthogonal relative to the side of the load (Lancaster – 302). (Lancaster – Page 8 paragraph 76)
Regarding claim 28, Lancaster discloses the angle is substantially orthogonal relative to the side of the load (302). (Page 8 paragraph 76) Lancaster also disclose other directions may be used. This implies that other angles may be used.
However, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker do not explicitly disclose the angle is an acute angle greater than 45 degrees.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art would have the angle is an acute angle greater than 45 degrees, since it has been held that were the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 7 paragraph 22 of the Specification, the angle is disclosed to be substantially orthogonal or an acute angle of greater than 45 degrees. 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, Shulman, and Gao et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 29, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose flow device comprises a flow stabilized high speed fan blower (Shulman – 68) configured to generate the flow of fluid to have a velocity of at least 20 miles per hour proximate an outlet of the flow stabilized high speed fan blower (Shulman – 68). (Gao et al. – Column 14 lines 45-49)
Regarding claim 30, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow stabilized high speed fan blower (Shulman – 68) is configured to generate the flow of fluid to have a velocity of at least 50 miles per hour proximate an outlet of the flow stabilized high speed fan blower (Shulman – 68). (Gao et al. – Column 14 lines 45-49)
Regarding claim 31, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow stabilized high speed fan blower (Shulman – 68) is positioned less than 12 inches from the side of the load when generating the flow of fluid. (Studebaker – Column 11 lines 16-23)
Regarding claim 32, Shulman discloses the flow device includes an outlet (70). (Column 6 lines 3-9)
However, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker do not disclose the outlet has a vertically-oriented flat profile.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the outlet include a vertically-oriented flat profile, since it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice absent of persuasive evidence that the particular change is significant. [MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)]
On page 8 paragraph 23 of the Specification, the fan blower is disclosed to include an outlet with a vertically-oriented flat profile. 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, Shulman, and Gao et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 32 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 33, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose a flow stabilized high speed fan blower comprising:
a housing (Gao et al. – 400) extending along the longitudinal axis (Gao et al. – 101) between an inlet (Gao et al. – see figure 2 above) and an outlet (Gao et al. – see figure 2 above);
an axial fan blade (Gao et al. – 500) disposed in the housing (Gao et al. – 400) and configured to rotate about the longitudinal axis (Gao et al. – 101);
a fan motor (Gao et al. – 300) coupled to the axial fan blade (Gao et al. – 500) and configured to rotate the axial fan blade about the longitudinal axis (Gao et al. – 101) at a rate at or greater than 10,000 RPM; and
a plurality of stabilizing vanes (Gao et al. – 402) extending between the axial fan blade (Gao et al. – 500) and the outlet (Gao et al. – see figure 2 above) of the housing (Gao et al. – 400) and configured to stabilize fluid flow downstream of the axial fan blade (Gao et al. – 500).
(Gao et al. – Figures 2, 6 and Column 6 lines 5-10, 42-51, Column 7 lines 32-35, Column 11 lines 25-27)
Regarding claim 34, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose a conveyor (Shulman – 22) configured move the load (Lancaster – 302) away from the wrap position after severing the web of packaging material (Lancaster – 160). (Shulman – Figure 4 and Column 5 lines 56-61, Column 6 lines 3-9)
Regarding claim 35, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow device (Shulman – 68) is disposed adjacent to the conveyor (Shulman – 22). (Shulman – Figure 4)
Regarding claim 36, Lancaster discloses a controller (318) configured to operate the various components of the apparatus. (Page 8 paragraph 75) Lancaster also disclose the flow of fluid is applied to the packaging material tail includes multiple pulses or blasts. (Page 6 paragraph 50) In order for the flow device to be configured to apply multiple pulses, the flow device would have to remain stationary relative to the load for a duration of time.
Therefore, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker is interpreted to disclose a controller (Lancaster – 318) coupled to the conveyor (Shulman – 22) and configured to:
causing movement of the conveyor (Shulman – 22) to be paused after moving the load (Lancaster – 302) away from the wrap position when the load (Lancaster – 302) has reached a predetermined position relative to the flow device (Shulman – 68),
activating the flow device (Shulman – 68) to direct the flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) is performed while movement of the conveyor is paused; and
causing movement of the conveyor (Shulman – 22) to be resumed after activation of the flow device (Shulman – 68) to direct the flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106).
Regarding claim 38, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow of fluid is a third flow of fluid and the flow device (Shulman – 68) is a third flow device, wherein the apparatus further comprises:
a first flow device (Lancaster – 322) configured to, after severing the web of packaging material (Lancaster – 106) and while the load (Lancaster – 302) is still in the wrap position, directs a first flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) from a position generally upstream of a free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) and at an acute angle relative to the side of the load (Lancaster – 302) while the free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) is unsupported to cause the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) to come into contact with the side of the load (Lancaster – 302); and
a second flow device (Lancaster – 324) configured to, once the free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) comes into contact with the side of the load (Lancaster – 302) and while the load (Lancaster – 302) is still in the wrap position, directs a second flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) at a second angle relative to the side of the load that is substantially orthogonal relative to the side of the load.
(Lancaster – Page 2 paragraph 15, Page 8 paragraph 75)
Regarding claim 39, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow of fluid is a second flow of fluid the flow device (Shulman – 68) is a second flow device, wherein the apparatus further comprises a first flow device (Lancaster – 322) configured to, after severing the web of packaging material (Lancaster – 160) and while the load (Lancaster – 302) is still in the wrap position, directs a first flow of fluid towards the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) from a position generally upstream of a free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) and at an acute angle relative to the side of the load (Lancaster – 302) while the free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) is unsupported to cause the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) to come into contact with the side of the load (Lancaster – 302). (Lancaster – Page 8 paragraph 77)
Regarding claim 40, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose, a wiping assembly configured to, once the free end of the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) comes into contact with the side of the load (Lancaster – 302) and while the load (Lancaster – 302) is still in the wrap position, mechanically wiping the packaging material tail (Lancaster – 106) against the side of the load (Lancaster – 302). (Lancaster – Page 8 paragraph 77)
Regarding claim 41, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow device (Shulman – 68) is configured to generate lateral fluid flow of at least 20 miles per hour in all directions at least 18 inches from the central axis of the fluid flow column. (Gao et al. – Column 14 lines 45-49) (Studebaker – Figure 13 and Column 8 lines 58-67)
Regarding claim 43, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow device (Shulman – 68) is configured to generate lateral fluid flow of at least 20 miles per hour in all directions at least 18 inches from the central axis of the fluid flow column. (Gao et al. – Column 14 lines 45-49) (Studebaker – Figure 13 and Column 8 lines 58-67)
Regarding claim 44, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the flow device (Shulman – 68) is configured to generate lateral fluid flow of at least 20 miles per hour in all directions at least 18 inches from the central axis of the fluid flow column. (Gao et al. – Column 14 lines 45-49) (Studebaker – Figure 13 and Column 8 lines 58-67)
Claims 16 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lancaster, III et al. (2022/0002012)(referred as Lancaster) in view of references Shulman (4,152,879), Gao et al. (10,227,988), and Studebaker (7,007,403) as applied to claims 13 and 34 respectively above, and further in view of reference Tolson (5,787,682).
Regarding claim 16, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the step of moving an outlet of the flow device with the conveyor.
Tolson discloses a method comprising the step of moving an outlet (32) of a flow device (40) with a conveyor (20), wherein the directing flow of fluid towards a package (P) is performed during movement of the package (P) on the conveyor (20). (Figure 1 and Column 4 lines 5-9, 43-46)
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 flow device of Shulman, incorporated into Lancaster, by further moving the outlet of the flow device with the conveyor as taught by Tolson, since column 5 lines 61-67 of Tolson states such a modification would ensure the flow of fluid is directed to a specific target area as the load moves on the conveyor.
Regarding claim 37, Lancaster modified by Shulman, and Gao et al. and in view of Studebaker disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose an outlet of the flow device is configured to move with the conveyor.
Tolson discloses an apparatus comprising: a conveyor (20); and a flow device (40), wherein an outlet (32) of the flow device (40) is configured to move with the conveyor (20) such that the flow device (40) directs the flow of fluid towards a package (P) during movement of the package (P) on the conveyor (20). (Figure 1 and Column 4 lines 5-9, 43-46)
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 flow device of Shulman, incorporated into Lancaster, by further configuring the flow device to move with the conveyor as taught by Tolson, since column 5 lines 61-67 of Tolson states such a modification would ensure the flow of fluid is directed to a specific target area as the load moves on the conveyor.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 08/28/2025 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2-3 and 24-25 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1, 4-23, and 26-44 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with reference Shulman (4,152,879), in view of the amendments, Examiner withdraws the 102 rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with reference Lancaster, III et al. (2022/0002012), in view of the amendments, Examiner withdraws the 102 rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Lancaster, III et al. (2022/0002012) modified by reference Shulman (4,152,879), in view of the amendments, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of reference Lancaster, III et al. (2022/0002012) modified by references Shulman (4,152,879), Gao et al. (10,227,988), and Studebaker (7,007,403).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 November 21, 2025
/STEPHEN F. GERRITY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 21 November 2025
Prosecution Insights