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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 4-5 are labeled as “New”. These claims are being treated as “Previously Presented”.
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) 1-2 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over om (US Patent 5,318,399) in view of Velan et al. (US Patent 5,417,320) hereinafter referred to as Velan in view of Doke et al. (US 2007/0162174 A1) hereinafter referred to as Doke.
Regarding claim 1, Marom discloses a method (figs. 1-3 and/or 9) for cutting (via 4, 5) open a wrapping (2a, 2b and/or 3a-c) of a bale (1) which has been formed by a stamp (This is product by process limitation. The claim is directed toward a method of cutting open a wrapping and not the process of forming the bale. The reference to the stamping is not deemed to be part of the claimed method) acting upon fiber material (col. 2 line 57) in a pressing direction (Pressing direction is top to bottom as seen in figs. 3a and 9a; See expansion of bale 1 as straps 3a-c are cut in fig. 3a. This decompression is an indication of what the pressing direction would have been to form the bale) and compressing (col. 2 line 66 – col. 3 line 1, “The bale is surrounded by a plurality of bale ties 3a, 3b and 3c, such as steel straps which are secured around the bale with a substantial tension”; See expansion of bale 1 as straps 3a-c are cut in fig. 3a) the stamped fiber material with a plurality of straps (3a-c), the strapped bale having two small side surfaces (surface seen in fig. 1b along with its opposing side; surfaces on the left and right sides as seen in figs. 3a and 9a) formed by a height and a depth of said bale, and a large side surface (forward facing surface as seen in figs. 3a and 9a) formed by a width and a height of said bale, the method comprising the steps of:
a) orienting the bale so that said height of the bale aligns with said direction (As seen in figs. 3a and 9a, the bale 1 is aligned such that it is in the same orientation it would have been when it was pressed to apply the straps);
b) severing the straps (figs. 1b, 3a and/or 9a-b; #4, 5 cuts along the point at which the straps are separated; col. 3 lines 11-15; col. 5 lines 42-46) thereby forming a line of marked separation points (cut lines in figs. 3 and 9) on said large side surface (forward facing surface as seen in figs. 3a and 9a) of the bale;
c) making at least one horizontal cut (col. 5 lines 42-46; figs. 9a-b) in the wrapping on said large side surface a distance from a lower surface of the bale, with said horizontal cut having a start point and an end point, thereby at least partially separating a lower part (2b; fig. 9a-b) of the wrapping from an upper part (2a; fig. 9a-b) of the wrapping, the upper part of the wrapping having a top portion at an upper surface of the bale and side portions at said side surfaces of the bale (figs. 3a, 3c and 9b; upper part 2a covers the top surface and partially extends down along the sides); and
d) removing the side portions of the upper part of the wrapping in a vertical direction (via 6a; col. 4 lines 5-30 – “the pull-off rolls 6a and 6b are vertically moved upwardly and, respectively, downwardly on the post 7 from the position shown in FIG. 3b into the position shown in FIGS. 1d and 3c, whereby the pull-off rolls 6a and 6b pull the wrapper parts 2a and 2b upwardly and downwardly, respectively.”; col. 5 lines 38-42) along said side surfaces of the bale (figs. 3a, 3c, 9b; The lead side portion of the upper part of the wrapping is moved vertically upward by roll 6a and then the trailing side portion is pulled vertically upward along the trailing end side portion by the winding and vertical motion of roll 6a).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the step of having a bale which has been formed by a stamp acting upon fiber material in a pressing direction is not simply a matter of a product by process limitation, but an affirmative recitation of a stamp and stamping step, the Office further points to Velan.
Velan (figs. 1-6) teaches the step of having a bale (10) which has been formed by a stamp (12) acting upon fiber material in a pressing direction (col. 4 line 66 – col. 5 line 12) and compressing the stamped fiber material with a plurality of straps (30; col. 5 lines 35-60).
Given the teachings of Velan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the bale of Marom be formed by a stamp. Both references are concerned with the formation of bales of fiber. Doing so was well-known in the art and used to hold bales of fiber together as straps were being applied to compress the bale into as small as possible of a shape to reduce size for transport.
Marom fails to disclose making at least one diagonal cut respectively in the wrapping on said two small side surfaces of the bale, with each diagonal cut meeting either the start point or end point of the horizontal cut.
However, Doke (fig. 13; #280) a method for cutting open the wrapping of a package (Abstract; fig. 6; paragraphs 0068 and 0070) and removing the wrapping (paragraph 0067 – “a user can program the apparatus 10 to remove major and minor flaps of a box, cut three sides, or cut away a front wall to create a display case”) making at least one diagonal cut (diagonal cut running from the front face to the rear top of #280) respectively in the wrapping on said two small side surfaces of the bale, with each diagonal cut meeting either the start point or end point of the horizontal cut (horizontal cut on front face of #280; paragraphs 0068 and 0070), thereby at least partially separating a lower part (portion below cut 282 in fig. 13) of the wrapping from an upper part (portion below cut 282 in fig. 13) of the wrapping, the upper part of the wrapping having a top portion at an upper surface of the bale and side portions at said side surfaces of the bale (fig. 13).
Given the teachings of Doke, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the cut pattern of Marom with the additional diagonal cuts of Doke. Doke is concerned with the problem of removing the outer covering from a package (paragraph 0067). Utilizing additional diagonal cuts would make it easier to remove the covering from the contents simply because more cuts in a covering means it would be easier to remove the outer covering. Diagonal cuts where a known way of achieving this desired state for covering material removal.
Regarding claim 2, Marom (figs. 1-3 and/or 9) discloses comprising a further step of removing (fig. 1d; col. 3 lines 19-29; fig. 9b; col. 5 lines 37-46) the straps and wrapping from the bale.
Regarding claim 4, Marom discloses wherein said horizontal cut is parallel to said line of marked separation points (figs. 9a-b; the horizontal cut and marked separation points of the straps is the same line; col. 5 lines 31-37).
Regarding claim 5, Marom in view of discloses Velan discloses wherein said distance between the horizontal cut and the lower surface is at least 30 mm.
As seen in Marom, the horizontal cut is made in the center of the bale. Velan (col. 5 line 66 – col. 6 line 8) teaches that the general size of such bales is going to be much greater than 10 inches in height. As such, the horizontal cut would be made well above 30mm from the lower surface.
Given the teachings of Velan, it would have been obvious to have the bale of Marom be of a typical scale as put forward in Velan so as to conform to desired transport sizes. Doing so would result in a method wherein said distance between the horizontal cut and the lower surface is at least 30 mm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments are directed toward the newly amended subject matter of “removing the side portions of the upper part of the wrapping in a vertical direction along said side surfaces of the bale”. The Applicant argues that the disclosure of Marom is directed toward a horizontal removal of the wrapping and not a vertical one as claimed.
The Office contends that Marom still reads on the claim limitation as written. Marom discloses in col. 4 lines 5-30, “the pull-off rolls 6a and 6b are vertically moved upwardly and, respectively, downwardly on the post 7 from the position shown in FIG. 3b into the position shown in FIGS. 1d and 3c, whereby the pull-off rolls 6a and 6b pull the wrapper parts 2a and 2b upwardly and downwardly, respectively.” While there may be a horizontal component to the movement of the wrapping material as it is being removed from the bale, there is still a vertical component to this movement which results in removing the side portions of the upper part of the wrapping in a vertical direction along said side surfaces of the bale as claimed. In Marom, after engagement by roll 6a and the lead end of wrapping 2a, the lead side portion of the upper part of the wrapping (2a) is moved vertically upward by roll 6a and then the trailing side portion is pulled vertically upward along the trailing end side portion by the winding and vertical motion of roll 6a. While there may be differences between the Applicant’s disclosed method and the instant prior art, those differences are not distinguished over the prior art by the present claim language.
Conclusion
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