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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10, and 30-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopes et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11/738,895) in view of Lancaster et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,854,247).
Regarding claim 1: Lopes discloses an apparatus for wrapping a load, comprising:
a paper-based packaging material dispenser configured to dispense a web of paper-based packaging material to the load (Figs. 1-4; via 82);
a rotational drive configured to generate relative rotation between the paper- based packaging material dispenser and the load about an axis of rotation during a wrap cycle (via turntable 86); and
a paper-based packaging material holder (via the shown mechanism dispensing package materials 46), the paper-based packaging material holder including:
a clamp including a downwardly-facing opening (Fig. 7; via 66 facing downwardly and/or 70) configured to receive a leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material and hold the leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material during at least a portion of the wrap cycle (intended use limitations of the clamp; not given much patentable weight); and
an arm supporting the clamp (via the show arm supporting clamp 66 or 70), the arm being biased to a first position that separates the clamp from a side of the load, and the arm being movable to a second position that positions the clamp against the side of the load in response to tension in the web of paper-based packaging material during the relative rotation when the leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material is held by the clamp, see for example (Figs. 6-8; via the movement and/or rotation of 66/70 in arm supports; “retaining assemblies 66, 70 can be aligned substantially horizontally”, meaning they are capable of being moved and positioned in different positions).
Lopes does not disclose the amended claim referring to the arm moving in two different positions, wherein the second position of the arm positions the clamp closer to the axis of rotation than the first position. However, Lancaster discloses similar wrapping apparatus with the use of arm moving in two different positions to get the clamp closer to the axis of rotation than the other position, see for example (Figs. 8-9; via arm 250 with holder/gripper 240 rotating along with the turntable 220 and further rotating around its own “principal axis”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Lopes’s gripping and arm mechanism by another more flexible and adjustable to rotate around the load while getting closer and/or further from the center of rotations, as suggested by Lancaster, in order to come up with more effective coasts and mechanism in gripping to the wrapper while controlling the tension applied to avoid damaging (column 1, lines 40-52).
Regarding 5: Lopes discloses that the clamp is a first clamp, and wherein the apparatus further comprises a second clamp (via 66 and 70) that is movable in a direction along the axis of rotation and configured to support the leading end of the web of paper- based packaging material prior to the wrap cycle, see for example (Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 6: Lopes discloses that the second clamp is configured to hold a trailing end of the web of paper-based packaging material at an end of the wrap cycle (via “retaining assembly 70 are configured for gripping/holding respectively a tail 68 of the first material web”).
Regarding claim 7: Lopes discloses the second clamp is configured to move in the direction along the axis of rotation with the paper-based packaging material dispenser (via 70; further it is noted that the intended use limitations of the second clamp 70, not given much patentable weight).
Regarding claim 8: Lopes further comprising a controller (inherently those type of machines are programmed and controlled via controller), wherein the controller is configured to control the apparatus to, proximate a start of the wrap cycle:
move the leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material in the direction along the axis of rotation while being held by the second clamp such that the leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material is received within the opening of the first clamp;
actuate the first clamp to hold the leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material after the leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material is received in the opening of the first clamp; and
release the second clamp after actuating the first clamp (inherently the entire wrapping apparatus 20 discloses some type of controller to control and manage its mechanisms and stations).
Regarding claim 9: Lopes discloses that at least one layer of the web of paper-based packaging material overwraps the clamp during the wrap cycle, and wherein the arm is movable in a direction along the axis of rotation to withdraw the clamp from the leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material proximate an end of the wrap cycle, see for example (“the second retaining assembly is configured to grip a second end tail of the second material web and to rotate about the lower periphery of the lower portion…, thereby wrapping the lower portion of the load across the lower periphery”).
Regarding claim 10: Lopes may not suggest that the clamp includes first and second jaws, wherein the first jaw has at least one longitudinal groove and the second jaw includes at least one longitudinal rib that is received within the at least one longitudinal groove when the clamp is actuated to provide greater holding resistance in a first direction transverse to the axis of rotation than in a second direction parallel to the axis of rotation. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted Lopes’s clamping mechanisms 66 and/or 70 by another with jaws having grooves, as a matter of engineering design choice, since using jaws with grooves are old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 30: Lancaster discloses that the paper-based packaging material holder further includes an arm support (Figs. 6-8; via the shown supports section of arms holding 66 and/or 70) configured to support the arm, wherein the arm support is configured to maintain a substantially constant rotational position about the axis of rotation relative to the load during wrapping (intended use limitations of arm support), wherein the clamp is a first clamp (via 66), and wherein the apparatus further comprises a second clamp (via 70) that is movable in a direction along the axis of rotation and configured to support the leading end of the web of paper- based packaging material prior to the wrap cycle; see for example (“the second retaining assembly is configured to grip a second end tail of the second material web and to rotate about the lower periphery of the lower portion…, thereby wrapping the lower portion of the load across the lower periphery”).
Regarding claim 31: Lancaster show the arm is configured to rotate about a pivot axis that is offset from and substantially parallel to the axis of rotation (Figs. 8-9; via “arm 150 to rotate about its principal axis” and rotates along with table 220 around axis 228).
Regarding claim 32: Lancaster discloses that the arm is rotatably supported by an arm support that maintains a substantially constant rotational position about the axis of rotation relative to the load during wrapping (via the shown constant rotation of arm 250 along with table 220 and along its own “principal axis”).
Regarding claim 33: Lopes discloses that the arm support is supported on a platen that rotates about the axis of rotation and engages with a top of the load during wrapping, see for example (Fig. 1; via the shown upper arm holding grippers 66 above load 22).
Regarding claim 34: Lopes discloses that the first and second clamps are positioned and configured to pass the leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material from the second clamp to the first clamp, see for example (Fig. 1; via two clamping mechanism 66 & 70; further intended use limitations of the “clamps” not given much patentable weight).
Regarding claim 35: the first and second clamps are positioned and configured to pass the leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material from the second clamp to the first clamp by actuating the first clamp to hold the leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material and releasing the second clamp to release the leading end of the web of paper-based packaging material, see for example (Fig. 1; via two clamping mechanism 66 & 70; further intended use limitations of the “clamps” not given much patentable weight).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-10, and 30-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely sole on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of the latest conducted interview on 02/04/2026 and filed amendments/arguments on 02/05/2026 the Office as set forth above believes that a use of clamping mechanism in a wrapping apparatus being rotated in two different axes to come up with a different position of the clamp in respect to the load axis of rotations was clearly suggested by the new applied art Lancaster ‘247, see for example Figs. 8-9; via “arm 150 to rotate about its principal axis” and rotates along with table 220 around axis 228).
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-45244524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731