Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/946,736

PALLET WRAPPING FILM PERFORATION SYSTEM AND METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 13, 2024
Examiner
WEEKS, GLORIA R
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Allied Packaging Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
562 granted / 802 resolved
At TC average
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
836
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§112
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 802 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 action is in response to the amendment and remarks received on December 1, 2025. 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. Claims 1, 8, 9, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BISON (US 11,434,029) in view of NELSON et al. (US 10,279,945) and CHIU (US 5,842,320). In reference to claims 1, 8, 9, 28 and 29, BISON et al. discloses a wrapping system comprising: a first spindle (see Diagram I below) configured to receive a plurality of rolls of film and allow film 110 from each roll to unwind by rotating about the first spindle; a support bar 102 positioned along a film path downstream of the first spindle (figure 1), the support bar 102 having a plurality of arms 104 coupled to the support bar to receive film and create a band as the film passes through the plurality of arms; a second spindle (see Diagram I below) positioned along the stretch film path downstream of the support bar 102, the second spindle supporting a roll of film and allows the film to unwind by rotating about the second spindle into an overlapping configuration with the film unwound from the first spindle to define a reinforced film; and a pre-stretch machine 116 configured to receive the reinforced film. BISON et al. does not discloses a perforation roller as claimed. PNG media_image1.png 413 698 media_image1.png Greyscale Diagram I Figure 9 of NELSON et al. (US 10,279,945) teaches a wrapping system comprising: a spindle supporting a roll of film (see Diagram II below) to allow film from the roll of film to unwind by rotating about the first spindle; and a separation roller positioned downstream of the spindle, the perforation roller having a plurality of perforation blades (see Diagram II below) spaced along a length of the perforation roller to form a plurality of holes in the film, each perforation blade including a curved edge (see Diagram II below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the wrapping system of BISON to include a perforating roller, since column 2 lines 8-16 and column 8 lines 37-46 of NELSON et al. state such a modification would provide piercings in the film for the purpose of providing ventilation to (agricultural) product wrapped by the film. PNG media_image2.png 418 347 media_image2.png Greyscale Diagram II Although the separation roller of NELSON includes a plurality of separation blades, NELSON does not disclose the blades having a blade guard, the separation blades and blade guard(s) removable from the perforation roller. Figure 6 of CHIU teaches a perforation roller 11 comprising a plurality of separation blades 13 removably (122) coupled to the perforation roller 11; each of the plurality of perforation blades coupled to a blade guard 12 configured to sit (111; column 2 lines 30-33) against the perforation roller 11 when the perforation blades are installed in the perforation roller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the perforation roller of BISON in view of NELSON to include blade guard and means for removing the perforation blades from the perforation roller since column 1 lines 22-36 of CHIU suggests such a modification allows the perforation blades to be easily replaced and for arrangement of the perforation blades to implement individual/variable design configurations of the perforation blades. Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BISON (US 11,434,029) in view of NELSON et al. (US 10,279,945) and CHIU (US 5,842,320) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of OLEKSY et al. (US 5,447,009). PNG media_image3.png 365 714 media_image3.png Greyscale Diagram III Regarding claim 2, the modified wrapping system of BISON discloses a (second) spindle and perforator roll configured to feed film along a path, but does not disclose the film path changing by at least 90 degrees downstream of the perforator roll. OLEKSY et al. teaches a wrapping system (figures 1 & 4) comprising a spindle 84 supporting a roll of film 40 that is unwound along a film path (figure 4) towards a perforator roller 102 having a plurality of blades 101 along an axis (figure 3) of the perforator roller 102; wherein the film path of the film changes direction by at least 90 degrees (see Diagram III above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the wrapping system of BISON with a film direction change of less than 90 degrees or at least 90 degrees as taught by OLEKSY et al. since the disclosures of BISON and OLEKSY et al. support the knowledge in the art of wrapping systems to select either range of film directions along a perforation roller would be within the level of ordinary skill for the purpose of effectively engaging a film against the perforation roller to provide perforations therein. Claims 3, 5-7, 21-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BISON (US 11,434,029) in view of NELSON et al. (US 10,279,945). With respect to claims 3, 5-7, 21 and 25-27, BISON et al. discloses a wrapping system comprising: a first spindle (see Diagram I above) configured to receive a plurality of rolls of film and allow film 110 from each roll to unwind by rotating about the first spindle; a support bar 102 positioned along a film path downstream of the first spindle (figure 1), the support bar 102 having a plurality of arms 104 coupled to the support bar to receive film and create a band as the film passes through the plurality of arms; a second spindle (see Diagram I above) positioned along the stretch film path downstream of the support bar 102, the second spindle supporting a roll of film and allows the film to unwind by rotating about the second spindle into an overlapping configuration with the film unwound from the first spindle to define a reinforced film; and a pre-stretch machine 116 configured to receive the reinforced film. BISON et al. does not discloses a perforation roller as claimed. Figure 9 of NELSON et al. (US 10,279,945) teaches a wrapping system comprising: a spindle supporting a roll of film (see Diagram II above) to allow film from the roll of film to unwind by rotating about the first spindle; and a separation roller positioned downstream of the spindle, the perforation roller having a plurality of perforation blades/pins (see Diagram II above; figure 7-pins and figure 9- blades) spaced along a length of the perforation roller to form a plurality of holes in the film, each perforation blade including a curved edge (see Diagram II below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the wrapping system of BISON to include a perforating roller, since column 2 lines 8-16 and column 8 lines 37-46 of NELSON et al. state such a modification would provide piercings in the film for the purpose of providing ventilation to (agricultural) product wrapped by the film. In reference to claims 22 and 23, figure 1 of BISON discloses the plurality of arms 104 on the support bar 102 configured to form a first band and a second band separated by a gap. Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BISON (US 11,434,029) in view of NELSON et al. (US 10,279,945) as applied to claims 3 and 21, and further in view of BISON (US 8,707,664; hereinafter BISON ‘664). Regarding claims 4 and 24, the modified wrapping system of BISON discloses a perforation roll forming a plurality of holes in a film across areas reinforced by bands spaced by a gap, but does not disclose the perforator roll providing punctures in an unreinforced area of the film overlapping with the gap defined between the bands. Figure 10b of BISON ‘664 teaches a wrapping system comprising a perforation roller 510 configured to form a plurality of punctures areas of a film reinforced by a band 461 and areas not reinforced by the band 440. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have further modified the wrapping system of BISON to form a plurality of holes through the film in areas reinforced by the bands as well as gap areas (unreinforced) of the film between the bands since column 14 lines 1-46 of BISON ‘664 suggest that forming holes in both the reinforced areas (bands) of the film as well as the unreinforced (gap) areas is a matter of design choice for the purpose of ensuring that all areas of product wrapped by the film are ventilated. Claims 10 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BISON (US 11,434,029) in view of NELSON et al. (US 10,279,945) as applied to claims 3 and 21, and further in view of OLEKSY et al. (US 5,447,009). In reference to claims 10 and 30, the modified wrapping system of BISON discloses a (second) spindle and perforator roll configured to feed film along a path, but does not disclose the film path changing by at least 90 degrees downstream of the perforator roll. OLEKSY et al. teaches a wrapping system (figures 1 & 4) comprising a spindle 84 supporting a roll of film 40 that is unwound along a film path (figure 4) towards a perforator roller 102 having a plurality of blades 101 along an axis (figure 3) of the perforator roller 102; wherein the film path of the film changes direction by at least 90 degrees (see Diagram III above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the wrapping system of BISON with a film direction change of less than 90 degrees or at least 90 degrees as taught by OLEKSY et al. since the disclosures of BISON and OLEKSY et al. support the knowledge in the art of wrapping systems to select either range of film directions along a perforation roller would be within the level of ordinary skill for the purpose of effectively engaging a film against the perforation roller to provide perforations therein. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached PTO-892 for a notice of references cited and recommended for consideration based on their disclosure of limitations related to the claimed invention; in particular, the disclosure of ARONSEN et al. (US 8,637,134), HEIKAUS et al. (US 8,053,056) and KURATA et al. (US 5,307,609) which further disclose the knowledge in the art to provide perforations in a reinforced film. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA R WEEKS whose telephone number is (571)272-4473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-2pm & 5pm-7pm EST. 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. Other helpful telephone numbers are listed for applicant's benefit: Allowed Files & Publication (888) 786-0101 Assignment Branch (800) 972-6382 Certificates of Correction (703) 305-8309 Fee Questions (571) 272-6400 Inventor Assistance Center (800) PTO-9199 Petitions/special Programs (571) 272-3282 Information Help line 1-800-786-9199 /GLORIA R WEEKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 March 12, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 13, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599378
HANDHELD ELECTROMECHANICAL SURGICAL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599382
STAPLE CARTRIDGE COMPRISING FORMATION SUPPORT FEATURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600506
PHARMACY PACKAGING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589516
Working Machine
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576549
ELECTROSTATIC CLUTCH FOR POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+12.2%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 802 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month