DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s amendments and response of 18 December 2025.
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 Interpretation
To avoid ambiguity in interpretation of claim 1, the Office notes that the limitation of “means arranged to rotate” is deemed to be separate element from the cited “at least one wrapper arm” and not a subcomponent thereof. The manner in which the instant claim is formatted might lead some to conclude that the “means arranged to rotate” is a part of the wrapper arm. Such is not deemed to be the case and the “means arranged to rotate” is deemed to be a separate claim element.
In claim 1, the term “means arranged to rotate” is still interpreted under 35 USC 112f (6th paragraph), and the Office accepts the Applicant’s citation of pg. 5 lines 18-20 of the instant specification as providing the requisite subject matter support.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacy (WO 2015/185732 A1) in view of Hooper (US Patent 1,654,258).
Regarding claim 1, Lacy discloses a foil wrapping device (101; figs. 2-7, 16-22) for wrapping of cylindrical bales comprising:
a wrapping table (120, 121; or 120, 121, 155) with a defined orientation and size, comprising powered (paragraphs 00233, 00244) rollers arranged to turn a bale (240) having a z-axis (z) (into the page fig. 5; paragraph 00246) parallel with said rollers, and a table y-axis (y) (see annotated fig. 22 below; axis perpendicular to longitudinal axis of 120, 121) perpendicular to the z-axis (z) (see annotated fig. 22 below);
at least one wrapper arm (401, 402a-c, 128; paragraph 00271, 00274) with a defined wrapper arm axis (y2) (axis of 131; Top to bottom in fig. 1 and into the page in fig. 7; see also annotated fig. 22 below), said wrapper arm being:
arranged to hold a foil roll (403; paragraphs 0001, 00272) in parallel (figs. 3, 5 and 6; see also annotated fig. 22 below) with said wrapper arm axis (y2); and
arranged to wrap plastic foil (paragraph 0001) around a cylindrical bale (240) localized on the wrapping table (paragraphs 00246, 00271-00272); and
means (430) arranged to rotate:
the wrapping table around the table y-axis (y), or
the at least one wrapper arm (paragraphs 00224, 00271) around the wrapper arm axis (y2) axis,
characterized in that the wrapper arm axis (y2) is arranged with a wrapping inclination (α) (see annotated fig. 22 below; paragraph 00325 – “Tilting the rollers upwards as described means that during wrapping the wrapping is applied across the centre of both sides of the bale. As an alternative, or in addition, the axis of rotation of the wrapping arms could be tilted from being perpendicular relative to a horizontal plane of the mechanism for rotating the bale during wrapping to achieve a similar relative angle.”) in relation to the table y axis (y),
the wrapping table (120, 121) being shorter in the direction parallel with the powered rollers than a length of a supported cylindrical bale in use, to allow an end section of the cylindrical bale supported thereon to be unsupported by the powered rollers (This is deemed to be a limitation of intended use. The device of Lacy is deemed to be capable of being used with a bale that is at least slightly longer than the rollers and as such reads on the claim);
and wherein the wrapping inclination (α) causes the plastic foil to be wrapped around the cylindrical bale with the plastic foil overlapping a center of the end surface of the cylindrical bale and where a center-line of the plastic foil is offset from the center of the end surface of the cylindrical bale (This is a limitation of intended use. Lacy is deemed to be capable of being used in the cited fashion and thus reads on the claim. Paragraph 00325 “This means the wrapping material is inclined to hit the bale high on one side (for example in a rear mounted arrangement the side furthest from the tractor) and low on the opposite side. Tilting the rollers upwards as described means that during wrapping the wrapping is applied across the centre of both sides of the bale.” See also annotated fig. 22 below as to how overlapping a center of the end surface of the bale (i.e. along the z-axis) while the center-line of the plastic foil being offset from the center of the end surface would be achieved. The foil being wrapped on the left/rear side of the bail will be wrapped higher on the bale relative to the z-axis. The foil being wrapped on right/front side of the bail will be wrapped lower on the bale relative to the z-axis. At the very least, the wrapping on either the front or the rear of the bale will be off the center z-axis due to the tilt of the bale caused by the α-inclination. As can be seen in annotated fig. 22, the bale on the rear side can be below the height of the foil roller, and the same bale on the front side can be above the height of the foil roller, thus creating the claimed “offset” while still allowing for the foil to cover the center of the end face.)
PNG
media_image1.png
594
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the wrapping table being shorter in the direction parallel with the powered rollers than a length of a supported cylindrical bale in use is not simply a matter of intended use, the Office further points to Hooper.
Hooper teaches the wrapping table (6, 7) being shorter (fig. 2) in the direction parallel with the powered (3, 18, 19) rollers (6, 7) than a length of a supported cylindrical bale (4) in use, to allow an end section of the cylindrical bale supported thereon to be unsupported by the powered rollers (fig. 2).
Given the teachings of Hooper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the rollers of Lacy to have them be shorter than a typical bale length. Bales do not need to be fully supported along their entire length to be sufficiently supported to allow for rotating and wrapping. Making the rollers shorter would reduce the overall cost to manufacture the device and reduce the amount of space it took up. The combination of Lacy and Hooper would result in the bale location depicted in the annotated fig. 22 of Lacy above.
Regarding claim 2, Lacy discloses wherein the wrapping inclination (α) is between 10 and 55 degrees (fig. 22; paragraph 00325 – “at least one roller 120… is mounted on the machine so as to be angled upwards from the forward end toward the rearward end at an angle from about 3 degrees to about 10 degrees”).
Regarding claim 3, Lacy discloses wherein the wrapping inclination (α) is about 10 degrees and is used to prevent drift of a bale off the end of the rollers and helps to improve the distribution of film on the bale (fig. 22; paragraph 00325), but does not disclose the angle is between 15 and 45 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to consider and use an angle is between 15 and 45 degrees. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05 I and II). Lacy is concerned about having an inclination angle to prevent drift of the bale off the end of the rollers and to improve distribution of film. It would stand to reason that one of ordinary skill would have considered other close and similar ranges of inclination as necessitated by different sized and weighted bales that might be encountered. A larger or heavier bale might require a greater amount of inclination to avoid drift or allow for better film distribution. Doing so would result in an inclination in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Lacy discloses wherein the wrapping inclination (α) is about 10 degrees and is used to prevent drift of a bale off the end of the rollers and helps to improve the distribution of film on the bale (fig. 22; paragraph 00325), but does not disclose the angle is between 25 and 35 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to consider and use an angle is between 25 and 35 degrees. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05 I and II). Lacy is concerned about having an inclination angle to prevent drift of the bale off the end of the rollers and to improve distribution of film. It would stand to reason that one of ordinary skill would have considered other close and similar ranges of inclination as necessitated by different sized and weighted bales that might be encountered. A larger or heavier bale might require a greater amount of inclination to avoid drift or allow for better film distribution. Doing so would result in an inclination in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Lacy discloses wherein the wrapping table (120, 121) is tilted to a table inclination (β – fig. 22, angle between 120 and 703) between 0.5-30 degrees (paragraph 00325) towards a side at which the wrapping table is attached to the device (703 or 157).
Regarding claim 6, Lacy discloses wherein the table inclination (β) is about 5 degrees (paragraph 00325).
Regarding claim 7, Lacy discloses equipped with a side support (703 or 157 or 106) at the lower side of the inclined wrapping table.
Regarding claim 10, Lacy discloses wherein the wrapping table (120, 121) is arranged stationary while the wrapper arm(s) (401, 402a-c) is/are arranged to rotate (paragraphs 00224, 00271) around the wrapper arm axis (y2) (axis of 131; Top to bottom in fig. 1 and into the page in fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Lacy as modified by Hooper above discloses wherein the wrapping table (Lacy – 120, 121; Hooper – 6, 7) is constituted by rollers (Lacy – 120, 121; Hooper – 6, 7) which support the cylindrical bale (Lacy - 240; Hooper - 4) in use, the rollers having extension along the z-axis less than a length of the supported cylindrical bale (Lacy - This is deemed to be a limitation of intended use. The device of Lacy is deemed to be capable of being used with a bale that is at least slightly longer than the rollers and as such reads on the claim; Hooper further teaches a bale with a length than the support rollers – fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Lacy discloses wherein the wrapping table comprises two first rollers (120, 121) and two second rollers (155; fig. 16) shorter in length than the first rollers.
Regarding claim 14, Lacy discloses wherein the two second rollers (155; fig. 16) are side rollers (fig. 16; they are located on a rear side of the bale).
Regarding claim 16, Lacy discloses wherein the second rollers (155; fig. 16) are vertically higher (figs. 16 and 20; #155 are higher than 120, 121 when 121 is of equal height of 120 in the loaded position of fig. 20) than the first rollers (120, 121).
Regarding claim 17, Lacy as modified by Hooper above discloses the device configured to apply the plastic foil (Lacy - 403; Hooper - 55) to an unsupported (Lacy - This is deemed to be a limitation of intended use. The device of Lacy is deemed to be capable of being used with a bale that is at least slightly longer than the rollers and as such reads on the claim per annotated fig. 22 above; Hooper – fig. 2) part of the cylindrical bale (Lacy - 240; Hooper - 4).
Regarding claim 18, Lacy as modified by Hooper above discloses the device configured to apply the plastic foil (Lacy - 403; Hooper - 55) to an unsupported (Lacy - This is deemed to be a limitation of intended use. The device of Lacy is deemed to be capable of being used with a bale that is at least slightly longer than the rollers and as such reads on the claim per annotated fig. 22 above; Hooper – fig. 2) part of the cylindrical bale (Lacy - 240; Hooper - 4).
Regarding claim 19, Lacy as modified by Hooper above discloses the device configured to apply the plastic foil (Lacy - 403; Hooper - 55) to an unsupported (Lacy - This is deemed to be a limitation of intended use. The device of Lacy is deemed to be capable of being used with a bale that is at least slightly longer than the rollers and as such reads on the claim per annotated fig. 22 above; Hooper – fig. 2) part of the cylindrical bale (Lacy - 240; Hooper - 4).
Regarding claim 20, Lacy discloses wherein the wrapping inclination (α) is about 10 degrees and is used to prevent drift of a bale off the end of the rollers and helps to improve the distribution of film on the bale (fig. 22; paragraph 00325), but does not disclose the angle is between 15 and 45 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to consider and use an angle is between 15 and 45 degrees. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05 I and II). Lacy is concerned about having an inclination angle to prevent drift of the bale off the end of the rollers and to improve distribution of film. It would stand to reason that one of ordinary skill would have considered other close and similar ranges of inclination as necessitated by different sized and weighted bales that might be encountered. A larger or heavier bale might require a greater amount of inclination to avoid drift or allow for better film distribution. Doing so would result in an inclination in the claimed range.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacy (WO 2015/185732 A1) in view of Hooper (US Patent 1,654,258) in view of Hourihane (US 2011/0271641 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lacy is deemed to disclose wherein the device is provided with two (402a-c) wrapper arms (402a-c) having a common axis (y2 - axis of 131; Top to bottom in fig. 1 and into the page in fig. 7; paragraph 00274) of rotation and being arranged symmetrically around the wrapping table (fig. 7; paragraph 00271 – “spaced substantially equally apart”).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the claim requires exactly two arms being symmetrical, the Office alternatively points to Hourihane.
Hourihane teaches a similar foil wrapping device (fig. 2) wherein the device is provided with two (fig. 2) wrapper arms (7, 12) having a common axis (9) of rotation and being arranged symmetrically (fig. 2) around the wrapping table (5).
Given the teachings of Hourihane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the wrapper arms of Lacy to have two symmetrical wrapper arms as in Hourihane. Doing so would reduce the cost and complexity of manufacturing by having fewer arms while still allowing the device to perform the wrapping twice as fast as a device using only a single arm, thus maintaining a good deal of efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacy (WO 2015/185732 A1) in view of Hooper (US Patent 1,654,258) in view of Braun et al. (GB 2269795 A) hereinafter referred to as Braun.
Regarding claim 9, Lacy fails to disclose wherein the wrapper arm(s) is/are arranged stationary while the wrapping table is arranged to rotate around the table y-axis.
However, Braun teaches a foil wrapping device wherein the wrapper arm(s) (9 and/or 10) is/are arranged stationary while the wrapping table (4) is arranged to rotate around the table y-axis (pg. 6 lines 8-11).
Given the teachings of Braun, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Lacy to make use of a rotating table and stationary arms as in Braun. Lacy and Braun are both concerned with the problem of applying a foil to a bale. In order for this to be accomplished, either the bale needs to move relative to the wrapping arms or the wrapping arms need to move relative to the bale. Braun teaches the known alternative of having the table rotated rather than having to move the arms. The advantage of this is that the invention only needs to move one object (i.e. the bale) as opposed to a series of arms. Additionally, the inertia of a bale acts as a strong and steady pulling force on the wrap thus reducing the need to have to generate that force by moving smaller arms.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacy (WO 2015/185732 A1) in view of Hooper (US Patent 1,654,258) alternatively in view of McHale et al. (US Patent 7,156,015 B2) hereinafter referred to as McHale.
Regarding claim 11, Lacy discloses wherein the foil roll(s) (403) is/are suspended by a wrapper arm (401; 402a-c) having the shape of a rotating ring (128).
Wherein the Applicant may argue the wrapper arm does not have the shape of a rotating ring, the Office alternatively points to McHale.
McHale teaches wherein the foil roll(s) (62) is/are suspended by a wrapper arm (54, 55) having the shape of a rotating ring (55; col. 12 lines 33-53).
Given the teachings of McHale, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to modify the wrapping arm of Lacy to be the rotating ring of McHale. Doing so would ensure that the film rolls move at identical speeds as they moved around the bale thus ensuring an even distribution of film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawing objections, 35 USC 101 and 112a/b rejections have been deemed persuasive. Those objections and rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 18 December 2025 with respect to the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Lacy does not disclose or hint that the wrapping inclination (α) recited in claim 1 of the present application and which is related to the orientation of the wrapping arms causes the plastic foil to be wrapped around the cylindrical bale with the plastic foil overlapping a center of the end surface of the cylindrical bale and where a center-line of the plastic foil is offset from the center of the end surface of the cylindrical bale”.
The Office notes that the disclosure of Lacy would result in the claimed wrapping orientation of claim 1. This is detailed in the rejection above and best exemplified by annotated fig. 22. A bale of a length longer than the support rollers (as is further taught by Hooper), results in the center-line of the wrapping foil being offset with the center of the end surface of the cylindrical bale while still covering the center of the bale. Paragraph 00325 of Lacy notes, “This means the wrapping material is inclined to hit the bale high on one side (for example in a rear mounted arrangement the side furthest from the tractor) and low on the opposite side. Tilting the rollers upwards as described means that during wrapping the wrapping is applied across the centre of both sides of the bale”. Hitting the bale high on one side and lower on the opposite side means that the center-line of the foil will be offset from the center of the ends, while still having the wrapping applied across the center of both sides. This is what is shown in annotated fig. 22. Thus the claimed wrapping configuration would result when performed by Lacy on a bale of the designated size. As such, Lacy is deemed to disclose the cited limitation.
Wherein the Applicant appears to be arguing that the wrapping table being shorter in the direction parallel with the powered rollers than a length of a supported cylindrical bale in use is not simply a matter of intended use, this limitation is deemed to be taught by Hoover in fig. 2 and detailed above. Having bales of different dimensions (i.e. lengths, widths, heights, circumference, etc.) is notorious within the art. Hoover teaches that is was known to put bales longer than the rollers that support them on support rollers. Even if the bale is positively recited, it is still taught by Hoover. The resulting combination of which teaches the claimed combination as detailed above.
The Applicant argues that, “It is not disclosed in Lacy that inclining the axes of the rollers and the center line of the wrapping foil contributes to wrapping efficiency.” The Office deems this argument irrelevant and also inaccurate. Per Lacy, paragraph 00325, “Angling the roller(s) upwards has the advantage of helping to prevent drift of a bale off the end of the rollers. It also helps to improve the distribution of film on the bale”. Improving the distribution of the film and allowing the wrapping arms to move faster by preventing drift is directly providing solutions for “wrapping efficiency”. Furthermore, what problems Lacy is concerned with is not a disqualifying issue for Lacy disclosing the claimed subject matter. Even if Lacy was concerned about different problems, that Lacy discloses the claimed subject matter still leads the claims to be rejected. And Hooper is deemed to be analogous art to that of Lacy as it is concerned with supporting a cylindrical bale for wrapping. So their teachings, regardless of their own inventor’s intent, lead to a combination that reads on the instant claims.
The Applicant argues that Lacy teaches that “off-center wrapping is undesirable… and actively teaches away from the solution of the claimed invention.” The Office notes that paragraph 00325 reads, “This means the wrapping material is inclined to hit the bale high on one side (for example in a rear mounted arrangement the side furthest from the tractor) and low on the opposite side. Tilting the rollers upwards as described means that during wrapping the wrapping is applied across the centre of both sides of the bale.” The disclosure of Lacy explicitly puts forward the off-center wrapping when it cites being high on one side and low on another. Lacy can’t be deemed to “teach away” from something it is explicitly disclosing. Whatever intentions of design that may or may not exist between the instant invention and the prior art of record does not prevent the prior art of Lacy in view of Hooper from reading on the claimed elements as cited above.
Applicant’s remainder arguments rely on those directed toward claim 1. The Office points to those responses above.
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 ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731