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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to claims filed on 08/08/2025.
Claims 133-147 and 151-152 are currently being examined.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 08/08/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 133-147 and 151-152 are pending for examination.
Claims 133-147 and 151-152 are currently amended.
Claims 148-150 are canceled.
Specification and Drawings:
Amendments to the specification have been submitted with the preliminary amendment filed on 08/08/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 133-137, and 140-147 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franzaroli (US 20200339291 A1).
Regarding claim 133, Franzaroli discloses an apparatus for packaging articles (12) into a package ([0048] and [0051]), said articles being composed of one or more products, said products being in the form of rolls ([0019]-[0020], [0050], and [0106]-[0110]), the apparatus comprising:
a supplying device (12 and/or 22) for supplying said articles (11), the supplying device including at least one conveyor ([0052]);
a preparing device (16) for preparing groups of articles (13) to be packaged, the preparing device (16) including at least one robot ([0071]; Fig. 1) for forming the group of articles on a supporting surface ([0053]-[0064]; Figs. 1-3 and 9-10);
a packaging device (15) of the respective group of articles (13) to be packaged, the packaging device (15) including a wrapping device (153/150; [0106]-[0109]);
a plurality of independent, or discrete, treatment modules or units for treating (14), said articles, which treatment modules or units are situated in a sequential manner or in a succession to one another ([0134]-[0135], and Figs. 6-8), to provide for the packaging of the same articles (11), through the preparation of the groups of articles;
wherein at least one of said treatment modules (14) or units is the preparing device (16- is dedicated to at least one discreet module/unit per treatment station; Figs 6-9); and
wherein at least another one of said treatment modules or units (14), separate from the at least one of said treatment modules or units (there are multiple treatment units, 14-Fig. 4), is the packaging device (15 with wrapping 153/150 is in separate, downstream treatment modules/unit from 16 robots releasing onto 140, then advancing via 141 to 151-153; [0102-[0134] and Figs. 4-5)
Regarding claim 134, wherein at least one of said treatment modules or units (14) comprises an advancement device (141) for advancing said products to be packaged, the advancement device includinq at least one further conveyor ([0112]).
Regarding claim 135, wherein the at least one of said treatment modules or units (14) comprises a supporting frame (See Frames; Fig. 1) of the advancement device (141).
Regarding claim 136, wherein at least certain of said treatment modules or units (14) each comprise inlet and at least one outlet for the articles and/or groups of articles (12), wherein the at least one outlet of one of the at least certain of said treatment modules or units is operatively connected with the at least one inlet of a subsequent one of the at least certain of said treatment modules or units (Figs. 2 and 6, 9-11 shows the different modules, having inlet for the article to pass through and outlets for the article to move through).
Regarding claim 137, wherein at least one of said treatment modules or units (14) includes an outlet for articles not used therein (Fig. 6; shows unit, 14 having openings or outlets on each side where unused package can go through).
Regarding claim 140, wherein said preparing device (16) comprises one or more preparing modules or units (Fig. 6), adapted to prepare a respective group of articles (12) to be packaged.
Regarding claim 141, wherein said one or more preparing modules or units (16) comprises a supporting frame (Fig. 4-external frames) configured for positioning on a floor via support feet (see Feet; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 142, wherein said supporting frame ([0126]; Fig. 9B) includes a front longitudinal side, a rear longitudinal side, a head transversal side, facing, in use, a unit arranged upstream of said apparatus, and a tail transversal side, facing, in use, a unit arranged downstream of said apparatus (Fig. 9A-9B).
Regarding claim 143, wherein said supporting frame ([0126]; Fig. 9B) is at least partially open on the head transversal side, to define an inlet for the articles and/or groups of articles to be processed therein, and is at least partially open on the tail transversal side to define an outlet of the groups of articles processed therein or an outlet of articles that are not used therein (Fig. 9A-9B).
Regarding claim 144, wherein said supporting frame ([0126]; Fig. 9B) is at least partially open on the respective head transversal side, to define an inlet for the articles to be processed therein, and is at least partially open on the front longitudinal side, to define an outlet of said group of articles to be packaged, and is at least partially open on the tail transversal side to define an outlet of articles, that are not used therein (The frames are open on all sides; Fig. 9A-9B).
Regarding claim 145, wherein said supporting surface (Surface on which articles is conveyed; Fig. 4) extends longitudinally between an inlet and an outlet of the preparing device (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 146, wherein said supporting surface (Surface on which articles is conveyed; Fig. 4) is at least partly formed by an upper face of a conveyor (141a-c) belt adapted to move said articles (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 147, wherein said conveyor belt (141a-c) extends between an inlet and an outlet of the preparing device (Fig. 2).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 138 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzaroli (US 20200339291 A1) in view of US Franzaroli (US 20180029735 A1; Hereinafter referred to as Franzaroli II).
Regarding claim 138, Franzaroli discloses apparatus for packaging articles (12) into a package ([0048] and [0051]) including treatment modules (14) according to claim 131, but does not expressly disclose, a detecting device, including at least one camera for detecting said articles and/or said groups of articles to be packaged, for detecting an arrangement or configuration of said articles and/or said groups of articles to be packaged being formed, and detecting any defects of said articles and/or of the respective groups of articles to be packaged.
Franzaroli II in a related invention teaches a detecting device, including at least one camera (14, 16, 18) for detecting said articles and/or said groups of articles to be packaged, for detecting an arrangement or configuration of said articles and/or said groups of articles to be packaged being formed, and detecting any defects of said articles and/or of the respective groups of articles to be packaged (See at least [0156], [0060] and [0080])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Franzaroli by incorporating at least one camera as taught by Franzaroli II in order to obtain or capture at least one image of the surface of the respective product or roll which allows inspecting the length, width and/or exterior aspect of the corresponding outside surface of the respective product, that is, also the condition or state of the respective end flap of the roll.
Claim 139 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzaroli (US 20200339291 A1) in view of US Overley et al. (US 20120321429 A1).
Regarding claim 139, Franzaroli discloses apparatus for packaging articles (12) into a package ([0048] and [0051]) including according to claim 131, but does not expressly disclose, a recirculating conveyor provided with the supplying device for recirculating non-used articles from said preparing device.
Overley in a related invention teaches a recirculating conveyor (66) provided with the supplying device for recirculating non-used articles from said preparing device (See at least [0043], and [0084])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Franzaroli by incorporating recirculating as taught by Overley in order to convey unfinished products or partially finished products.
Claim 151-152 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzaroli (US 20200339291 A1) in view of US Dall'Omo et al. (US 20070125242 A1).
Regarding claim 151, Franzaroli discloses apparatus for packaging articles (12) into a package ([0048] and [0051]) including said supporting surface according to claim 131, but does not expressly disclose, said supporting surface extends transversely toward an outlet of the preparing device.
Dall'Omo in a related invention teaches a supporting surface (13) according to extends transversely toward an outlet of the preparing device (6) (Fig. 1-2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Franzaroli by incorporating supporting surface extends transversely toward an outlet of the preparing device as taught by Dall'Omo since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 152, wherein said supporting surface (Surface on which articles is conveyed; Fig. 4 of Franzaroli and/or 13 of Dall'Omo) is at least partly formed by an upper face of a conveyor belt (13 of Dall'Omo), adapted to move the groups of articles forward while arranged on the conveyor belt transversely to a direction of advancement of the conveyor belt (Figs. 1-2 of Dall'Omo).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC 112(b):
Applicant’s amendment and corresponding arguments, see page 14-15 of the Remarks, filed on 08/08/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112(b) as set forth in the previous Office action has been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments, see page 16 of the Remarks, filed on 08/08/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 133 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “claim 1 requires that the treatment module or unit that is the packaging device is separate from the treatment module or unit that is the preparing (grouping) device and that Franzaroli does not teach or render obvious amended claim 1, as it teaches that the same module provides both grouping and packaging of the articles.”
However, the argued language “the treatment module or unit that is the packaging device is separate from the treatment module or unit that is the preparing (grouping) device” is clearly taught by the prior art because Franzaroli teaches treatment units (14) as independent and discreet modules arranged sequentially along the line (Fig. 6). The preparing device (robot, 16) and the packaging device (15, 150-153) are allocated to different treatment units (14) in the disclosed line; for example, Fig. 6 shows multiple treatment unit in a row, each upstream unit 14 contains its own robot 16 that forms and release the group of articles 13 onto a receiving surface and next a downstream treatment unit receives that already formed group and performs a final wrapping via its own dedicated packaging means (15). Additionally, the term “separate” can be broadly defined and interpreted because one possible interpretation is that the one treatment modules have both a preparing device and packaging device within it, and that the one treatment module could still be separate from another module housing another separate preparing device and packaging device as seen in the case of embodiment of Fig. 6. Therefore, it is deemed that Franzaroli teaches claim 133 as recited. Furthermore, the specification explicitly permits and encourages combining features across embodiments to create this separated configuration ([0154], and [0169]-[0171]). Therefore, Franzaroli not only discloses but expressly illustrate and enables a plurality of separate, successive treatment modules where at least one module performs the robot-based preparing function and at least another, physically distinct downstream module performs the packaging/wrapping function-precisely satisfying the “separate from” limitation of claim 133.
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 NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/STEPHEN F. GERRITY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 24 November 2025